elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ I obtained the latest weather. The winds strongly favored Runway 21. The runway is 4;300 long. However the displaced threshold for Runway 21 reduces the length to 3;803 which is less than the minimum runway length allowable for dispatch in the Sovereign. I reviewed the release and confirmed that Dispatch had planned this runway for us and it showed the reduced length of 3;803. I reviewed the feasibility notes and there was no reference to runway lengths. I reviewed the Sovereign section of the FOM and ZZZ is not listed as an airport that we can go to with a shorter runway. Before we were able to come to a resolution we had a red engine vibration L CAS message and diverted. Dispatch should not have planned us for this runway. Their planning program should not allow landings to be planned in that direction. During preflight we should have taken a closer look beyond the fact that the runway is 4;300 FT long. The feasibility notes should be updated to alert CE680 crews that it is not legal for them to land on Runway 21 due to its displaced threshold.




Synopsis: CE680 Captain reports being dispatched to ZZZ Runway 21; which is too short for his aircraft due to a displaced threshold. Before a resolution could be reached; a red engine vibration L CAS message is displayed and the flight diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 202202
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Aircraft X as an upgrade lead on Gate in ZZZ; and there was a quick pack box in the gate cart; when time to scan it the scanners went out when I tried to load it then the scanners came back on a few minutes to departure and when I scanned the quick pack box it didn't show me specifically that it was a hazmat after the scanner started working; so after the trip went out I was informed to contact load plan; then the Supervisor came in to confirm that it wasn't a hazmat after calling cargo; and cargo told him it wasn't a hazmat; then after the trip left then the Supervisor called load plan afterwards; and they told him it was and that the aircraft had to return to secure the hazmat.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported a Hazmat load configuration error after gate departure. The aircraft was summoned to departure gate to correct load configuration error.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was taking off carrying 5 passengers on a VFR flight [that] takes approximately 15 minutes. According to the flight manifest I had 33 gallons of fuel on board the aircraft; 14 gallons in the inboard main tanks and 19 in the tip tanks. It's company policy to utilize only the fuel in the tip tanks; switching back and forth upon the completion of each leg. I had my right tip tank selected before takeoff and it seemed to be in its proper detent. After rotation and climb to approximately 300 feet AGL my engine started surging violently. I immediately pitched down and landed safely on the remaining runway. I was able to taxi back to the ramp and upon investigation of the fuel tanks it became clear that the 10 gallons I had in my right tip had drained into the main tank. This is due to a common problem with the Cherokee Six 300 in which the fuel bypasses the selector and drains from the tips to the mains if the fuel selector is not secure in its detent. Due to our high number of operations per day; and the pressure to maintain a schedule I believed the fuel calculations on my manifest as well as the fuel gauge indication rather than taking the step to visually inspect the tank. The detent on the fuel selector was not where it appeared to be; I felt it lock in place; the selector arrow pointed directly at the placard labeled 'R TIP' but unfortunately it wasn't as secure as I had thought.




Synopsis: PA-32-300 pilot reported violent surging shortly after takeoff that resulted in landing on remaining runway. Reporter stated the wing tip fuel selector was slightly out of its detent; allowing fuel to drain to the main tank.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The three windows that face north in the tower cab are encased in ice.  They are completely opaque. There is no view of the NW quadrant of the airport; which includes the departure end of Runway 01L.  This condition started early this morning XA:00 and continues through the present XS:15.  There are aircraft operations being conducted with multiple snow removal teams in the immediate vicinity and that part of the runway/taxiway/airport and is not viewable from the tower.I recommend taking steps to remove the ice from the tower's windows as soon as possible.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported of windows incased in ice. Controller reported that the windows in a certain area of the Tower were opaque. Reporter stated that part of the airport was not viewable from the Tower cab due to the ice.
Date: 202101
Location: MMEX.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While conducting preparations for arrival into MEX; crew discovered the following charting error: All ILS and RNP (RNAV) approach charts to Runway 05R depict the final course to as 055 degrees. However the 11-0 MAVEK Transition to ILS DME2 Runway 05R dated Date depicts the ILS Runway 05R localizer course as 053 degrees (a discrepancy of 2 degrees).Of note: Course 053 degrees corresponds to the depicted final course to the VOR DME Runway 05L/R (13-1).




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a discrepancy between approach charts referencing the final approach course for this runway.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR20
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon taxi in on Charley to spot 2 nearing spot 5 run up area; Aircraft X taxied onto Charley directly in front of us from South West Ramp. Aircraft X was very difficult to see as they only had nav lights on and were buried in the lights of aircraft doing run ups at spot 5. I saw Aircraft X pull onto Charley to [Runway] XXL with approximately 50 ft. or less to spare pulling onto Charley and took controls and immediately applied brakes to stop. Ground Controller issued taxi advisory immediately after I had stopped aircraft. I had all lights on during taxi at time of event.Crew could of done a better job listening to other aircraft taxi instructions to maintain better SA (Situation Awareness).




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported another aircraft entered the same taxiway resulting in emergency braking.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Undeclared hazmat notification from company. Better training of ground loaders.


Second narrative: Undeclared hazmat notification from company. Ground crew loaded unmanifested hazmat.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported learning from their Dispatcher that hazmat had been loaded on the aircraft without the proper documentation.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot flying on leg 4 on day 2 of a 3 day trip. It was visual conditions departing on time. Immediately after takeoff while re-trimming we hear 'ding' 'trim' then saw a red warning of PTRIM MAIN INOP. I continued to maintain control of the aircraft on the RNAV departure. I noticed trim wasn't working correctly. Captain (CA) maintained radios and got out QRH to start procedure. We had to get ATC to let us level out. We ran the QRH. If it failed but Auto Pilot (AP) would still engage then we could continue? AP did engage and did appear to be working. CA then got dispatch and maintenance on [commercial radio] while I monitored flight. After explaining all we had done then looking at whether or not a reset may not be successful in destination we decided to turn back. Once we started to return the aircraft began an uncommanded climb from 2900. I then disconnected AP and used backup trim to get aircraft back in control. AP was used again in descent. Aircraft was out of trim and additional messages; AUTO TRIM FAIL and AP ELEV MISTRIM were presented. I told CA I wanted no delays and wanted to [advise ATC]. So we did and proceeded directly to the airport for the visual to runway 26L. Landed uneventfully.Threats; Long duty day after min rest; previous day had maintenance issue and gate return.Immediately land and deal with indications on the ground. Do not continue flight with a master warning.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a failure of the aircraft's pitch trim system during climbout. All appropriate abnormal checklists were accomplished and the crew returned to the departure airport; where an uneventful landing was accomplished.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This past week; I flew out of DCA. They had implemented the new LAZIR RNAV SID off of Runway 1. We did this departure on several occasions during the course of the 3 day trip. There were NO violations and we did NOT intrude into P56; however I was advised to file an ASAP regarding the Departure. I feel that it comes uncomfortably close to the prohibited area. IF the FMS were to malfunction and suddenly revert to Heading Select mode or something strange; there would be little to no time to correct the course and a P56 violation would be an almost certain outcome. While this may not affect the safety of flight; I believe it puts the flight and the crew at unnecessary risk. I was a safety report was the best why to express my thoughts and concerns regarding the departure. I was also told people were looking for opinions on this departure.




Synopsis: An E-135 Captain expressed concern that the recently inaugurated LAZIR RNAV SID out of DCA brings using flights too close to P-56. Reporter believed any disruption of RNAV capability would make an incursion difficult to avoid.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Aircraft: B737-700
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The [Duty Manager] allowed two flights with the same flight numbers to launch and be in the air at the same time.  We were notified of this; and subsequently changed [one of the flight numbers] to a flight number that should have been given to the aircraft in the first place (prior to launch).Preventative Measures: Possibly give the [Duty Manager] some type of automation tool that would bring to their attention that two flights with the same flight number have the potential for being in the air at the same time.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported discovering there were two Company flights with the same flight number in the air at the same time.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Before pushback the APU was started with the GPU. The GPU did not have enough power to start the APU and power the airplane. Power to the airplane was interrupted. We notified Maintenance and they come out and looked at it.  We're not sure if it's related to the event that occurred but might be useful. After takeoff the airplane would not pressurize in the automatic mode. We leveled the airplane at 10;000 and went to the QRH. The airplane would pressurize in manual mode. We contacted Maintenance to see what if they had any input; and they requested we return.  We attempted to burn as much fuel as we could prior to landing but still needed to land overweight. We  used the manual mode to depressurize the airplane during the descent. The Captain made the landing and touched down at 96 feet/minute; well below what was required for an overweight landing.   Threats included the pressurization controller and the possibility in not catching it after takeoff. We noticed it soon enough that oxygen or passenger oxygen was not needed. Other threats included the overweight landing. There were QRH recommendations that were helpful. The situation was handled with the correct amount of urgency. We worked well together to resolve the cabin pressurization issue and the overweight landing. This was a situation where we did not need to rush and make a mistake and therefore we didn't.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer reports a power interruption during APU start with a Ground Power Unit. After takeoff the aircraft will not pressurize in the automatic mode and Maintenance Control requests that the flight return.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching IND on downwind for 23L; Approach gave us a heading of 330 (base leg). I asked the First Officer if Approach asked if we have the field; what did he want?  I always ask the pilot flying if you have it visually; do you want to accept it visually? He responded yes. On base Approach called traffic orbiting downtown and we were still on a heading of 330. Shortly thereafter we were given a heading of 260 and Approach asked if we had the field. I said affirmative. As he cleared us for the visual; he called out the orbiting traffics position on the left and additional traffic on the right. We were at 3;000 outside of the outer marker which you cross at 2;700. I queried the First Officer about pressing the app/land tile which he hesitated to press. I mentioned it a second time and he pressed it. My attention went outside the left window looking for the helicopter traffic. I came back inside to cross check; I noticed we were approximately 700 FT low on the visual and glideslope.  I immediately announced step 1 and step 2 simultaneously and said; 'You're low pull your nose up.'  Approximately 3 seconds later Tower mentioned a low altitude alert. We're visual and all parameters stable on glideslope prior to 500 FT. Uneventful landing. There was no need to go around as the First Officer corrected the situation well before the 500 foot call.  Configured and on speed. First Officer mentioned to me in the blocks on the debrief that the traffic on the right was at 3;500 and felt the need to get below him. I mentioned to the First Officer the need to capture the glideslope and visual aids as the primary task because that is where controllers expect you to be on a visual while on final. The aircraft was final configuration at the outer marker.


Second narrative: Turning final on a visual; descended to 1;000 AGL 6 miles from runway resulting in a low altitude warning alert from Tower. Stopped descent at 1;000 AGL till 3 miles and continued down 3 degree glideslope. All speeds and configurations normal and stable. Scanning for traffic resulted in being lower than planned on visual turn to final.


Synopsis: Flight crew reports descending to 1;000 FT AGL six miles from the field on a visual approach to avoid traffic orbiting near the final approach course. ATC issues a low altitude alert.