elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORK.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: CTAF ORK
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was doing stop and go's in the pattern at ORK for night currency.  We departed ORK and upon climbing on departure our ADSB gave an alert for traffic. We noted a fast moving aircraft from our rear; stopped our climb at 300 feet AGL and watched a B757 pass right over us as we crossed the departure end of RWY 5 at ORK.  ADSB indicated the B757 aircraft was 700 feet above us; placing them in the traffic pattern for ORK. The B757 then turned towards LIT as if on a visual approach.  This felt very unsafe as we felt wake turbulence when we continued our climb out towards the track of the B757.  I was startled a B757 would be so low and at traffic pattern altitude over a non-towered airport.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported encountering wake turbulence while departing ORK from a B757 inbound to LIT.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot monitoring during the event. The aircraft was descending through 9000 ft to a level off of 6000 ft and instructed to hold 210 kts until further advised by ATC while being vectored. The Aircraft experienced an uncommanded gear extension with the gear handle in the off position. Given the amount of noise in the cockpit and the additional pitch over while in level change mode; I suspected the gear had extended with the lever in the 'OFF' position. I completed the QRH procedure for 'gear disagree' shortly after level off. When the gear handle was placed to down position; the red gear unsafe lights instantaneously went to green. No further action was taken. The flight landed safely and without incident.




Synopsis: A B737-400 landing gear extended uncommanded during descent through 9;000 ft as the aircraft was slowing to 210 kts. Safe indications resulted with the QRH execution.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: SR22
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: BWI was in an abnormal configuration departing Runways 10 and 15L and arriving Runways 10 and 15L. Training on Local Control; the trainee instructed the SR22 to LUAW on Runway 15L. The trainee then changed his/her mind and instructed the aircraft to taxi across the runway and hold short on the other side. There were no aircraft on final. The trainee wanted to depart aircraft from Runway 10 and did not want to hold the aircraft in position for a long amount of time. After the aircraft taxied across the runway; the ASDE-X target did not fully clear the runway. Discussion occurred in the Tower about the status of the aircraft and it was visually confirmed that the aircraft was holding short of the runway. The ASDE-X's target for the aircraft kept jumping. It would jump from clear of the runway to the ICON being just on the runway. The C525 checked in on final for Runway 15L and was cleared to land. On a 1/2 mile final; the ASDE-X alerted and said 'Runway 15L occupied; go around;' the aircraft was not instructed to go around and again; the aircraft that was holding short was on the correct side of the hold short line. We submitted paperwork to the ASDE-X office of a false alert. [We] should have sent the aircraft around per the .65.


Second narrative: [Narative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: BWI Controller described a ASDE-X Alarm indicating an aircraft on Runway 15L; the reporter noting a taxiing aircraft was observed by Tower personnel as clear of the runway so a landing clearance was issued contrary to procedures.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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 Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff we received a message from Dispatch to return to gate so the ramp could secure dangerous goods/Hazmat that was loaded . We advised that we were already airborne and discussed with dispatch a plan. The Dispatcher at the time did some research and advised that the ramp personnel that loaded the aircraft advised that the Hazmat/dangerous goods that was loaded correctly and secured. The DG sheet we received on preflight showed to misc Hazmat may with a weight of 257 LBS. Load planning and dispatch advised after we departed that the weight was actually 500 LBS; 250 LBS over what our initial sheet showed. The load planning and final weights seems to be correct; but the DG sheet we received from ACARS did not match that number. We continued the flight normally.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported receiving Dispatch message stating Hazmat cargo weight was erroneously under reported by 250 lbs.
Date: 201303
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: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After my four-day trip and prior to my commute home; the Chief Pilot approached me in the Crew Room and informed me that an aircraft which I had flown several day before had been identified with an oxygen problem. He explained that the oxygen bottle had been turned off at some point. I explained that I performed all of my normal oxygen tests per the AOM as I always do and noticed nothing abnormal. My Process: On every flight; I accomplish a F.I.G. Test (Flow; Intercom; O2 Gauge level) as part of my flow when I get to the oxygen system. I hold the intercom switch and depress the oxygen for five to six seconds to check for a drop in the oxygen gauge. Since we were scheduled to have the aircraft for five flights; I remember checking the level at 1400+; which would last us all day. I had no significant drop in the oxygen level when tested on that flight and no issues on each of the subsequent four flights. The only thing I can offer is: Change the test (if data supports) it from five seconds to ten seconds or possibly both Captain and First Officer test the O2 at the same time to put more demand on it in the current five second recommended test procedure.

Callback: The Reporter stated that his personal oxygen preflight test is slightly more extensive than his Company's published preflight procedure. Because the oxygen bottle and valve are located in the forward baggage compartment; there is no way to access it and physically check the valve's position. So to ensure the oxygen is available; he holds the oxygen mask test for at least seven seconds while looking directly at the gauge to ensure pressure is maintained and at the same time tests the mask's micophone. The Chief Pilot's statement that the oxygen was in fact OFF has the Reporter puzzled because he remembers testing the oxygen in his usual manner that day.



Synopsis: A B737-700 First Officer reported a series of flight crews flew an aircraft with the crew oxygen system not energized but he is certain that he successfully tested the oxygen system prior to his first flight on that aircraft.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: TRACON SDF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Encountered Severe Turbulence during Descent in SDF just west of BWG VOR at FL280 to FL260. Aircraft was at 290 knots (Vb speed) after having been briefed by Dispatcher prior to departure. Load Master was in back and was not injured. Event duration was approximately 3-5 minutes in length. Reported to ATC. No visible issues with aircraft on post flight; but event was written up and [Company] Maintenance Control was advised as well at mechanics on ground in SDF.




Synopsis: Boeing aircraft flight crew reported severe turbulence on descent into SDF.
Date: 201911
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: The new X app does not include the FOM [Quick Reference Checklist] in Featured Content. Crews have been accustomed to quick access to the [Quick Reference Checklist] without need to navigate through the FOM index. In a time sensitive situation; quick access to the FOM [Quick Reference Checklist] is essential and pilots' brains are already biased to look for the [Quick Reference Checklist] in the Featured Content section. This can cause confusion and frustration; both of which contribute to errors.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported that a company-issued app used by pilots on their iPads is confusing to use.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SQL.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D SQL; Class G SQL
ATC / advisory: CTAF SQL; Tower SQL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I entered the southbound Bravo surface transition at SFO along Highway 101 for San Carlos (SQL).  I knew that SQL tower closes normally at XA pm local and that staffing has been very limited due to [Company] under staffing.  The Tower recently was forced to close on certain days at XA45 pm and pattern work is rarely approved.  I had checked for NOTAMs for a closure on the [date] and hadn't found one during preflight.Along the transition I picked up San Carlos information Tango which indicated that the airport was open and the runway in use.Unbeknown to me; as I was still with SFO Tower; SQL Tower announced 'Attention all aircraft San Carlos tower will be closing in five minutes.'Two minutes later; I was told by SFO Tower to contact San Carlos Tower; keep the code.  I changed to 119.0 and called 'San Carlos Tower [call sign]; southbound transition; inbound; full stop; tango' and received no reply.  I called 2 more times while turning evasively to avoid the Delta and tried calling on COM 2 as well.I considered that I could ask SFO Tower; but they were busy with managing their surfaces.  I considered contacting NCT approach.  As it was night and I saw no traffic at the airport or in the vicinity visually or on ADS-B and none was called out to me by SFO Tower and I knew that the Tower staffing was constrained and may have gone home early; I elected to continue predictably on the normal path (overhead midfield 1200; enter right downwind 30) with CTAF calls; while looking for light gun signals; landing just after the normal Tower closure time.I'm concerned that:- SQL Tower closed before their published closure time (announcing 5 minutes at 7 minutes til the hour).- Clearly left their position 2 minutes after their '5 minutes' call; leaving the airport unattended while technically still controlled.- Failed to communicate this with nearby controllers.In retrospect; I should have orbited outside of the Delta for a few minutes and waited until I was certain the airspace was no longer controlled and then entered.I am concerned that the chronic strain on the controllers at San Carlos is leading to errors and shortcuts that will cause an accident.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported confusion when SQL Tower controllers closed Tower Control earlier than NOTAMed due to Controller Staffing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon receiving takeoff clearance for runway 1R at intersection Bravo; the Captain (and pilot flying) taxied onto the runway and turned left to line up on the centerline. All lights on the airplane were in the ON position and operable. It appeared we were lined up with the runway centerline. PF advanced the power levers and the airplane began to accelerate. I heard a few (3 or 4) loud thuds that sounded like the nose wheel going over an in-ground runway centerline light. I glanced at the instruments and back outside in order to make the appropriate call-outs. Once I realized we were lined up on the right edge of the runway; the PF began correcting to the left to get toward the center of the runway. The PF continued the takeoff and the flight continued without incident.The intersection did not have lead on lights (green) to enhance crew situational awareness to assure proper line up with the runway centerline.


Second narrative: We were assigned an intersection B departure off of runway 1L. We taxied via taxiway H and held short of runway 1L at B. We were then assigned an intersection B departure from runway 1R. We taxied across runway 1L and lined up on what I thought was the centerline of runway 1R. During the takeoff roll I felt my tires striking something and realized it was the right side edge lights of runway 1R. I corrected to the left to get back to the center of the runway and continued the takeoff and landed with no issues or perceived damage to the aircraft. After discussing the event; my copilot and I both wondered if the runway centerline lights were either very dim or not functioning. There were no green lead in lights to the runway centerline and no perceived centerline once on runway. After correcting to get back to the centerline; we still did not see a centerline. The only runway lights we saw were the runway edge lights and some green lights further down the runway leading from the centerline to one of the taxiways.


Synopsis: Corporate aircraft flight crew reported lining up and beginning their takeoff roll on the right edge of the runway. They quickly realized their error; corrected to centerline; and continued the takeoff.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EDVV.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was one of the relief pilots on this flight. Approx. 2 hr's after push back; myself and the other relief pilot was awoken from our required rest. After entering the cockpit we were informed that the First Officer's Air Data Computer (ADC) failed and we were returning. We were informed of what the flying pilots had done and we discussed what else we needed to do. We informed ATC we needed to jettision fuel to land. We were given clearance from ATC to dump fuel. We informed ATC we would be dumping for 20-30 min. We were given holding instructions to dump. At completion of dumping we contacted ATC; and received a clearance to the departure airport. We finished all required check lists and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: B747 Relief pilot reported being summoned from the bunk room after the flying First Officers ADC fails; about two hours after departure. Fuel is dumped and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At the time there was a tower tour going on and we were distracted by conversations; and explanations from the tour; we had just previously changed runway configurations; and I as a ground controller taxied the aircraft to the previous (wrong) runway and allowed the local controller to depart the aircraft into the incorrect airspace. The individual giving the tour shall instruct the tourist not to talk to any controller on position.


Second narrative: Change from runway 18 to 36. Tower tour in the tower. Aircraft X was taxied by ground control to 18C instead of newly activated 36C. I cleared Aircraft X for departure. Aircraft Y checked in on a left base for RWY 36L. I recognized what happened and turned Aircraft Y west and Aircraft X eastbound to maintain separation. Tower tour guides instruct tourists to not communicate with air traffic controllers working on position.


Synopsis: MEM Tower controllers reported a Tower tour distracted the Ground Controller allowing an aircraft to taxi to the wrong runway and Local departed traffic off that runway. Departure was in conflict with arrival traffic; so the Local Controller vectored the departure and sent the arrival around.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach we were advised by ATC of a low level alert. At the time we were on a visual approach and trying to maintain a safe distance behind traffic ahead. We allowed ourselves to get one dot low on the glide slope at approximately 1500 ft MSL. We immediately leveled off and captured the glideslope for remainder of approach. Being more situationally aware and better use of the automation on board the aircraft to [mitigate] increased work load. Late change to arrival and runway due to our request because of winds other than originally planned.




Synopsis: Widebody air carrier Captain reported ATC issued a low altitude alert during an ILS approach when they inadvertently descended below the glide slope.