elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We departed LGB today on a Part 121 passenger flight. Our aircraft was facing north. Our taxi clearance for departure was to taxi to runway 30 via E2 and E taxiway and hold short of J. Our Jeppesen taxiway diagram which is dated 25 June did not have E2 nor E on it. It showed a taxiway closed with X X X on it. We did see the yellow and black taxiway signs of E2 and E. I knew my Jeppesen charts in my iPad were current and up to date with the most recent update. Several hours later and done with my flying; I found the current and up to date taxiway diagram on the FAA NOS website. I downloaded the taxi chart and reviewed it. The NOS FAA chart just like the Jeppesen chart did not show an E2 nor E taxiway. I am confused why a taxiway was commissioned before it was released in charting. I did ask the Tower Controller; who was also controlling Ground; how long the E2 and E taxiway has been commissioned. And if I recall correctly; He said for 2 weeks. I would assume this is adequate time to get updated info to pilots who operate on the field. I also referenced LGB NOTAMS and there was nothing about E2 nor E. Make sure charts are available to pilots that are up to date. When a new taxiway is commissioned it should be charted or NOTAMed.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported LGB charts did not show the taxiways they were assigned.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At ZZZ; Human Remains were added in cargo but not included in Manifest. The flight crew did not have any knowledge of this until after shutdown in ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the undocumented transport of dangerous goods due to the flight crew not issued the required departure HazMat documents.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Jet bridge Operations
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When retracting the canopy before pulling the jetbridge; the right side of the canopy would not retract. I called [Maintenance] to advise. The ramp service man came up to the bridge and advised there is a known problem with the retractor at this specific gate but will be able to retract the canopy back after the bridge is pulled back a few inches from the aircraft. I was not comfortable so notified zone to advise. Zone agreed to not move the jetbridge until [Maintenance] arrived. When they did; they pulled the bridge back with the right side of the canopy down. I observed the canopy slid to the left of the aircraft before pulling completely away from the aircraft. He then was able to retract the canopy as the ramp service man mentioned. I asked him what the issue was and he said this was SOP and was ok to pull the bridge with the canopy down. I challenged him as I knew this was completely inaccurate procedure. He advised me he has been doing this job for 24 years and this was SOP. I advised him perhaps he needed to reach out to the Jet bridge trainers for clarification. I notified Supervisors. Should this of happened to a new hire; the direction given by the mechanic would lead the agent to think it is ok to pull a jet bridge with retracting the canopy. I also learned shortly after the incident for this specific jet bridge; if the canopy is lowered too much on the right side; it will not retract. The work around is to pull the bridge back a few inches; then retract the canopy. This workaround is unacceptable as clearly you are at risk of damaging the aircraft and goes completely against SOP.




Synopsis: A Customer Service Gate Agent reported a known fault with a jetbridge requires using non standard procedures to operate correctly.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After receiving clearance from DFW Tower to line up and wait on Runway 35L; we performed the Before Takeoff Checklist and aligned the airplane with the runway.We received the clearance for takeoff; applied the required flex thrust and commenced the takeoff run. At 80 KTS we performed our cross checks; then at about 115 KTS; Tower cancels our takeoff clearance due to an incursion of another plane down the runway.We performed the rejected takeoff maneuver and vacated the runway.Then; we asked Tower to hold position and we contacted Dispatch and Maintenance; and after discussing with them; we agreed to continue the flight after waiting for the brakes to cool down.After we got a green indication on the brake system; we obtained a new take off clearance and we continued the flight with no further problem.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported an aborted takeoff due to a runway incursion by another aircraft.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Single engine taxi out to Runway XXL for departure; 40 seconds after #1 engine start rollback; we got a 'Source Off LT and Gen Offline LT.'  20 seconds after that; Tower notifies us we have a fire in one of our engines. Simultaneously; a passenger on the Captain's side tells our flight attendants 'he sees a fire on the #1 engine'; and the flight attendants are passing that info to us in the cockpit via 4 dings and through the headphone.  By now; we also have an 'ENG FAIL' warning for #1.  Max EGT seen on #1 was 450.  EGT at the ENG Fail was approximately 350.  No fire or OVHT light appeared; however the Tower and another aircraft were still screaming that we were on fire.  We executed the Engine Fire Emergency procedures for the #1 engine; established communication with the Fire Chief; who stated that the fire looked to be from the rear of the engine only and he saw no visible damage to the aircraft.  Normal shutdown and completion of checklist items for the emergency.  All checklist items completed and uneventful exit from the aircraft at the gate.  Maintenance was already on hand and found a few initial assessments via their BIT examination.  During the initial fire; our B Flight Attendant and a few passengers also stated they heard a bang and saw several long flames come from the back of the engine.  Captain; First Officer and flight attendants all debriefed each other; and we completed the rest of our day with three more legs.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B737-700 Left Engine shutdown about 40 seconds after start and passengers began reporting a fire so the crew shut the engine down with Engine Fire Checklist while the airport fire crew stood by. At the gate Maintenance determined was a tail pipe fire because of a fuel control issue.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower APA
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On beginning of takeoff roll plane veered to left. Aborted takeoff; got back to center of runway; attempted takeoff again. Nose wheel steering off; nose wheel centered; advance power; plane veered left again; aborted a second time. Returned plane to center of runway; lined up again; held brakes advanced power to the same torque; around 50%; released brakes; plane veered left again. Aborted takeoff; returned to hangar. Wrote up 'plane will veer hard left at beginning of takeoff roll'.I have flown this plane before and it did veer left but was manageable. This time the FO and I could [not] get plane to not veer left. I believe with the same torque on both engines the blade angle on the right engine is greater than the blade angle of the left engine. Would take a lot of throttle stagger to match the blade angles together on takeoff roll. What could be done is set the torque even use some sort stroboscope to calibrate the pitch angle to compare the two engines. There must be some way to measure the pitch of the prop at any given power setting. I believe the difference in pitch at given power settings causes asymmetric thrust. It's a combination throttle alignment and blade angle that causes the plane to veer left.




Synopsis: SA-227AC Captain reported multiple attempts to takeoff; but each was rejected because of directional control issues.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During taxi out for takeoff holding in line for departure at runway 23R with thunderstorms in vicinity and rain having just passed over airport; we were instructed to follow the aircraft in front of us onto 23R and back taxi. We queried controller if  the airport was being turned around for a 05L departure and ground said yes.  Aircraft we were following was going much faster and we saw him turn off to right near the end of the runway and tower then told us continue to follow him and turn off at taxiway B2. There was a lot of standing water on runway and taxiways and as we approached signage for B2 we agreed that this was our turnoff. I initiated a slow right turn and could not see any paint markings but this was not unusual for MEX as they have ungrooved runways and there is always standing water after it rains. As I was about to turn left onto taxiway B to continue to 05L I realized we had crossed to taxiway B on an island not B2. There were no obstructions on the island and I only saw one yellow light off my left side. The taxi was smooth and nothing abnormal was felt or seen. The striped yellow paint of the island was not visible until we were looking at it from a different angle.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported being cleared to back taxi on Runway 23R at MMMX and exit at Taxiway B2. Standing water from a recent thunderstorm made taxiway lines invisible and the aircraft was inadvertently taxied across an 'island' on the way to Taxiway B.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VTI.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G VTI
ATC / advisory: CTAF VTI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were in the pattern at VTI practicing takeoffs and landings; initially using Runway 27 (winds were 330 at 6 knots). After 4 takeoffs and landings; we decided to switch to Runway 34 since the winds were favoring 34. There was no traffic at the airport up to this point; and there had been no radio communication from other pilots in the area; although we continued to make radio calls while in the pattern.On our second landing on Runway 34; just as we were rolling out on the runway after landing; we spotted an aircraft rolling down Runway 9 at high speed toward the intersection with Runway 34. We were clearly on a collision course; and I determined that we were unable to stop without hitting the [other aircraft]. I immediately took the controls and veered off the runway to the right into the grass to avoid hitting the other aircraft. At this point I determined that we would not be able to stop safely prior to reaching the edge of the airport boundary; so I applied full power and quickly lifted off. At that point we decided to leave the airport and head back to base.Key contributors to this event:1.) The other pilot made no radio calls; even though he was monitoring the traffic frequency (he did talk on the radio afterwards saying 'oh relax' to my inquiry about not making position reports).2.) The pilot of the [other aircraft] landed Runway 9 downwind in opposite direction of traffic (again without any radio calls); thus he was in a position where we were not expecting traffic.3.) The left corner of the intersection of Runway 34 and 9 (as viewed from Runway 34) is obscured by tall trees; thus we were unable to spot the traffic until it was almost too late.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported a NMAC with another aircraft while landing at VTI airport.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My aircraft was on final approach; landing under visual flight conditions.  We were instructed to 'go-around' by the Tower Controller due to traffic congestion.  During the go-around procedure; the nose landing gear on our aircraft would not retract.  We asked ATC to give us delay vectors to give us time to evaluate the situation and complete the necessary check list procedures.  We were unable to retract the nose landing gear and elected to divert our flight to an airport where the runways were longer and repair facilities were available.  The landing gear position indicators were indicating that the landing gear was down and locked into the down position and a normal approach and landing was completed.  The emergency equipment was requested to standby as a precaution.




Synopsis: A CE-560 nose gear failed to retract after a go-around at ATC direction.  The crew diverted to a nearby alternate where maintenance was available.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Furnishing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arriving the 'A' Flight Attendant said she had a passenger ask her if the seat bottom cushions were actually flotation devices like she said during the takeoff announcement. She immediately realized her mistake and told him he was right; they weren't on this aircraft. Since none of us noticed it during the demo...well; I'd like to know since when the passenger actually start listening to the demos? We were surprised to see the new aircraft as we expected a different aircraft. I just didn't listen that close to the demo announcement and didn't notice her mentioning the seat bottom cushions were flotation devices. We all missed it. I would suggest have an extra copy of the preflight bulletin in all our announcements books so it isn't missed. She used her announcement book; just didn't add the new part from the bulletin.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reported that their B737-900 seat bottoms cushions were not flotation devices but a passenger noted that the pre-takeoff PA announcement stated that the seat cushions were flotation devices.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ROC.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow; 0.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ROC
ATC / advisory: Tower ROC
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This flight departed in VFR conditions. It was an instrument training flight. The student pilot was initially in control of the aircraft. Navigation mode was GPS to Runway 28 at ROC. When we were cleared for the approach weather was VFR. Shortly thereafter; it went IFR and an IFR flight was filed in the air and we were cleared to the ROC airport and I requested ILS Runway 28 instead of GPS Runway 28. The instrument trainee was still in control of the aircraft. As we were being vectored conditions went to complete IFR. The trainee was having a difficult time with both heading and altitude. I was directing him but he was slow to respond. He was going below the assigned altitude on final. I finally took control of the aircraft. We were given altitude alerts by ATC. At some point we were cleared to land. The runway threshold came in sight and we landed. The low altitude issue would have been avoided had I; as the instructor; taken control of the aircraft as soon as we entered IFR conditions. This was not a deliberate action on my part but under the circumstances I acted too late. The flight was becoming uncontrollable. The Tower requested I call them upon shutdown. The lesson is as an instructor; take control immediately.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot reported that his instrument student pilot had difficulty controlling the aircraft on an ILS approach but he did not take control of the aircraft after ATC issued low altitude alerts.