elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were pushing back; communications were established and ops were normal.  We had been cleared to start and had started the number 2 engine. At one point the pushback stopped; a bit sooner than I expected. I assumed there must be something blocking our path. After a short delay and not hearing from the tug driver I tried numerous times to contact the driver. I got no response from him. I noticed the aircraft moving forward; leaned forward to see that the tug was not moving (not towing us) and went for the brakes. However; it was too late and I felt a small impact. I set the brakes. I opened the flight deck window and attempted to talk to the ground crew. Communication was difficult. There seemed to be a language barrier and the tug driver's headset was malfunctioning. I think it might have been a Bluetooth headset. After several minutes of trying I was finally able to talk to the driver on the headset. I told him that we struck something. I told the driver that we would need to be towed back to the gate for a maintenance inspection. I thought I was quite clear. Instead the driver disconnected the headset and drove away. The marshaller attempted to give me a salute as I was shaking my head 'no.' I did not flash my light to accept the salute but the marshaller just walked away. I had the First Officer shut down the number 2 engine and inform the ramp tower that we needed a tow back to the gate for maintenance inspection. It took quite some time to get another crew out there. In the mean time we called maintenance and I entered the need for an inspection in the Log. No damage was found; the inspection was signed off and we departed again. Failure of the tug driver to follow standard operating procedures after a failure of the tug driver's headset. No attempt was made to substitute hand signals after a failure of the headset to assure brakes were set. Emphasize the importance of standard operating procedures to ground crews.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the aircraft rolled forward after push back and a small bump was felt before the brakes could be set. The ground crew attempted to release the aircraft over the Captain's request for maintenance inspection.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL390; EICAS message RT Pack Heat and RT Pack OFF message. Followed QRH. I then noticed the cabin rate of climb was still increasing and the cabin altitude was at 15;000 feet. We donned our oxygen masks; established communication; [notified ATC;] and started an emergency descent. We leveled at 10;000 feet and contacted company and decided to continue to [destination].Captain and I believe that there is a problem with the L4 door being closed and seated properly.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported loss of pressurization at cruise.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Luscombe Model 8/Luscombe 50
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Second aircraft: M-20 F Executive 21
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; 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
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X (not tagged up and just on a 1200 code) called BFI on 118.3 about 12-13 miles north well outside the Class Delta inbound to land. I observed S46 working a VFR airplane Aircraft Y 8 miles north of my airspace NE bound and the aircraft did not have an altitude display; just RDR. Aircraft Y was on a direct intercept course for my arrival Aircraft X. This airspace is VERY busy and if they were going to let a VFR fly through it at a displayed VFR target southbound it's a safe bet the BFI might be talking with that aircraft. I had to call S46 and ask what altitude Aircraft Y before the targets merged. S46 is the RADAR facility and they should have reached out to BFI to ask if they were talking to the target.S46 is required to advise us if a known target in our Delta doesn't have any correct info in the display. This was definitely outside our Delta but an early call would have prevented wo targets merging. If BFI had a larger Class Delta this might not have been an issue.




Synopsis: BFI Tower Controller reported an airborne conflict that may have been prevented if Class D was larger or TRACON had been more proactive.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Two Class 8 Dangerous Goods packages were tied down too tightly and the packages were crushed. We had them removed from the aircraft before pushback.Inspect the tie down ropes and ensure they secure the packages but don't crush them.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported Dangerous Goods cargo was unloaded due to packages being crushed.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
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 CYYZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Because of the wind gusts and rain we elected to make a max thrust TO on 06L with the GOPUP One Departure which gave us a V1 speed of approximately 111 kts. We were cleared for takeoff and everything was normal. Aircraft were landing on 06R and at V1 speed I noticed an EMB145 that had landed clearing onto taxiway D3 (I think; but maybe it was D5). It was supposed to hold short of our runway but at approximately 130-140 kts we could see it had missed its hold short area. If the aircraft continued onto our runway I think we could have rotated and cleared it but it would have been close. The tower called for them to stop and they did so just on the edge of our runway. I steered our aircraft just to the left of centerline to give us some extra room and we took off at our normal rotate speed. After we changed freq ATC asked us a couple of questions and we continued to destination without other incident.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew taking off and an EMB145 flight crew instructed to hold short reported a runway incursion at CYYZ.
Date: 202104
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to the pandemic and the reduction in flight and passenger activity; many piers were closed. This led to packing more flights into fewer piers; while the passenger volume was low this did not have an effect on safety. The pier worker was able to work more flights simultaneously with a very low baggage volume.Many employees have expressed concerns to management and to their labor leaders.Today; the same piers are closed while the open piers are still working multiple flights and the baggage and passenger counts increasing. This is where the safety concern develops; there is limited space in the piers and the worker are forced to place bags on the ground waiting for future equipment to be placed in the pier. The main issue is that international destinations (bags) come down in advance of the ETD and other heavy volume flights cause the same hazard. The walking and working floor space is negligible. We have identified it as a serious tripping hazard. The majority of work place injuries come from 'Slips; Trips and Falls.' This has been identified and brought to operations leadership; no actions have taken place.Reopen closed piers and space out the work; as work volume has increased.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported that passenger counts and baggage are increasing; but there are not enough piers open to safely accommodate baggage handling.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LFPG.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LFPG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Heavy snow had fallen at LFPG and after sorting through many issues we made our way to Runway 26R. Following a landing B777 we went into position to line-up and wait. The far end of 26R has a rise and the end is not visible from line-up position. After a long delay with a conversation in French between the Tower and the B777; an approaching aircraft was sent around and we waited several minutes more. The runway was called plowed and clear with less than 5mm of snow. To our eyes it appeared clear. We then were cleared for take-off. As we were breaking ground it became clear that the entire runway had not been cleared. Perhaps the last 1;500 feet had not been cleared at all and had 6 or more inches of snow on it. This lack of plowing began near the t-4 intersection. I am fairly sure that the 777 got into the snow and began to move very slowly causing the aircraft to be sent around. We assumed full length clear when it was not and we did not have the situational awareness of the Tower/777 conversation and were not advised by Tower of less than full length.




Synopsis: B767 Captain discovers at lift off that the last 1;800 feet of Runway 26R at LFPG are not plowed and may have six inches of snow on it. The runway was described as plowed and clear by the Tower.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in communication with ZZZ Center; I checked in and the check in was acknowledged.  With COVID I have become accustomed to long periods of silence on the radio.  After a while; I think about 30 minutes; I realized it had been too long since I heard a radio communication.  So I tried to raise ZZZ Center; but received no reply.  I asked any aircraft on my last assigned frequency if they would ask Center what frequency I should be using.  A helpful pilot relayed that frequency; and at the new frequency I was able to contact ZZZ1 Center.  There were no further issues after that.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported having communication issues with Center.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As some of our older A320 family aircraft come of age I am encountering more delaminating or bubbling forming along the edge of cockpit windows. 20 years or so I had an A320 window internally catch fire during cruise at night between the window plies at the window heating element due to window delamination. On postflight I noticed that this particular aircraft had delamination hazing starting along the edge of the L3 window; for which an AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log) entry was made to have checked; and was found to be within limits. I have been told over the years by Maintenance that so long as the delamination is less than 3 inches wide and not within the direct field of view it is within limits. I have never run across a window even close to those limits. However; I thought my write-ups would [have at] least put the window on some sort of a monitor or watch list. I am told by Maintenance Control that is not the case. Furthermore; there is no way for a pilot to know if the window has already been written up in the past. In short; it would be helpful to have additional preflight guidance; similar to the preflight limitations we have for tires; to know what the window delamination/hazing limits are. As well as guidance on if and when an AML entry is appropriate. Perhaps an entry could also be made to the aircraft damage report once a window has been reviewed and found to be within limits to avoid repeat write-ups.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported the flight deck crew needs window delamination limits and guidance on when to enter the damaged window into the logbook.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was the third and last flight of day one on a 3-day trip. The previous two flights were very delayed resulting in quick turns. Both flights were very task saturating because they were very short. The first flight required an ILS Cat II landing into ZZZ; while the other required a non-coupled approach down to mins into LGA. Departing LGA we were assigned the LGA 5 Coney departure departing Runway 13. We set and briefed everything properly. However; on the climbout we continued flying heading 180. We failed to intercept the CRI 043R to CRI and then outbound on the 223R. We did comply with the crossing restriction and climb gradient. When we switched to departure frequency; ATC asked us to say heading; in which I; Captain (PM) replied 'heading 180.' ATC then stated 'roger;' gave us a turn direct to our first fix and a climb to 11;000 feet. It was late at night and ATC workload seemed low. ATC did not mention anything about the departure when giving us a frequency change. We didn't realize our mistake until the next morning while we were discussing it the next day. This mistake was due to multiple factors. We had a long day that was full of delays with quick turns; both crew members were task saturated from previous flights; and both crew members are ZZZ based and do not fly into or out of LGA. I also think the departure procedures are a little confusing since none of it shows up in the box or MFD and has to be manually put in. The next morning we flew into and out of JFK. We noticed that JFK had FOQA alerts for the JFK 5 departure. This would be a good idea to also implement FOQA alert or company notes in the LGA 5 departure to help alleviate some of the confusion of the LGA 5 departure; especially for those who do not operate into or out of the LGA airport.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that while departing LGA via the LA GUARDIA FIVE SID; the flight continued on a heading and did not intercept the charted VOR radial. The crew cited fatigue; lack of familiarity with the departure airport and confusing SID procedures that must be manually input into the FMS; as contributing factors.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft Fleet X task cards for the X; XX and XY day checks have a non-existent AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) reference listed for servicing the APU while the aircraft is in storage (49-XX-XX-XXX-XXXA) for the APS XXXX is incorrect. The correct AMM is 49-XX-XX-XXX-YXXA. We have brought this issue up several time here locally and sent several feedback requests in hopes of getting them corrected; with no joy. Please find someone to fix the paperwork.




Synopsis: Technician reported that task cards for servicing the APU of aircraft in storage do not have the correct reference number.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After parking and running checklists; we had a brake temp light and one of the brakes was at 7. We wrote up the hot brakes and were reviewing the book for additional information/actions when ground personnel called the cockpit. We were advised they had seen a small fire on the hot brake and had used an extinguisher on it. Ground said no indications of fire remained.


Second narrative: After a normal landing we had a short taxi to our gate. After block in we wrote up Hot Brakes since we had a Brake Temp light. After block in the Ramp called us and told us we had a brake fire; and they used a fire extinguisher to put out fire. I never saw the fire; and think there was a smoking brake only.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reports a brake temperature warning for one brake (7) after parking and makes a logbook entry. They are subsequently informed by ground personnel that a fire was detected and a fire extinguisher was used.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC cleared us the DSNEE4 to DSNEE; descend via. We were given two intermediate altitudes on short notice in the descent then told to resume descend via. The 20R GS was out according to the ATIS and we anticipated getting the RNAV RNP Z to 20R. We selected that before descent and at DSNEE the LNAV turned us to the fix after DSNEE on the RNAV Z Approach instead of going to JWARD as depicted in the arrival inset chart. ATC then turned us 10 degrees right and vectored us to final. There were no traffic separation issues or other deviations. We executed a visual approach without incident.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on the DSNEE4 arrival into SNA.