elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DWH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DWH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Reported 10 west of DWH with [current ATIS] and was told to report right downwind for 17R about one mile later further instructions continue for right base 17R number two following an aircraft on short final. Three miles out made contact with aircraft on short final and was told cleared to land keep my speed up and head for the numbers of 17R aircraft following. Turning final with the #1 aircraft still in sight and on the runway I started preparing for a go around. Tower told him twice to expedite. Desending through 200-100 over the threshold that aircraft got airborne after a touch and go. After touchdown tower said thanks for the help and asked where I was parking. After my speed was under control and assured Taxiway Echo I replied. Instructed to contact ground on Echo. Exited the runway on echo ensured my tail was cleared (concern about aircraft #3) came to a stop and contacted ground. Was instructed by ground to taxi to the ramp via Echo cross 17L a minute later was contacted to called the tower with a phone number. Spoke to the controller. At that time I was made aware by him there was a possibility of a incursion on 17L. To my knowledge I complied with all signs and markings. The controller mentioned a light identifying the hold short line at echo and 17L but it was not visible or illuminated. I'm aware of the hot spot and operated cautiously and safely in that area.As a pilot for the last 25 years; in retrospect don't understand why that spot is not controlled by the tower.




Synopsis: After landing on DWH Runway 17R then clearing at Taxiway E; a Pilot held short of Runway 17L but was informed by Tower that he may have incurred the Runway at the hotspot. The pilot disagreed.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D BET; Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After releasing Aircraft X off BET airport; BET TWR entered a departure message for the aircraft. Moments after Aircraft X auto-acquired at 015 turning southbound into a right downwind to land north. It was very noticeable since a CA (Conflict Alert) sounded due to close proximity with a 1200 VFR beacon code inside tower's airspace. I figured Aircraft X was returning to the airport for reasons unknown. I waited until after I observed the aircraft descend and appear to land on RWY 1R to call tower and inquire about what I saw. I did make the mistake of not using the full call sign (Aircraft X) and only [the first three letters]. I asked if they were going to depart again shortly or if they would re-file a new flight plan and if I should remove the one that was active. The tower informed me that they would re-file and the flight plan could be removed. Though; tower was talking about a different aircraft still on the ground. I proceeded to remove the flight plan and drop the target on the radar display. Little did I know Aircraft X was well East of BET airport still climbing to assigned altitude. 10 minutes later the relieving controller received a transmission from Aircraft X asking for a reroute to save flying time. Questioning who was calling; and me still being in the operations area post viewing; I recognized the squawk code and we got the flight plan restored and data on the airborne flight.I don't know why the aircraft tagged up so low and was shown landing. The facility is unable to pull up the radar playback. Apparently there was an equipment malfunction and for seven and a half hours no radar data was being recorded.In the future I will make sure to use full call signs to avoid confusion or incorrect coordination. Even though the radar was not working properly; this could have been avoided if coordination was better.




Synopsis: Anchorage Center Controller reported an aircraft departed; they thought they were returning on their own to the departure airport; but actually kept flying and were discovered minutes later when the pilot questioned the Controller about a possible re-route.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight number assignment at our Airline result in similar callsigns cause both an increase in pilot Controller communications in saturated ATC environments and resultantly increase the risk of inadvertent clearance and miss-communication which can lead to minor deviation or serious error. Although no error is being reported for this flight due to aggressive hear-back/readback awareness; this callsign situation needs to be addressed. On a particular day; three departures from the same airport in the late evening had similar callsigns: ABC X24; ABC Y24; and ABC Z22. On taxi out alone; I had to clarify with Ground Control that the clearance issued was for our flight (X24) and not Y24; in effect; doubling pilot-controller communications. We had to specify again while enroute that it was our flight to switch frequencies versus the misheard other. This experience is bad enough here in domestic operations; but is far worse in operation in the international theater where difficult accents (for both pilots and controllers) complicate the situation even more. I've flown into a European airport as X60 with Y60 on the same frequency; or from another European airport on X57; with Y57 trying to work the same ATC enroute and oceanic frequencies. This sometimes happens inadvertently when another airline has the same flight number; but is a terrible practice when the airline itself is setting up the chain of events that lead to communication errors. Although no errors occurred during this particular segment; the potential was great. As such; this is a communications safety issue that can and should be addressed promptly before a misheard clearance results in deviation or error.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot noted numerous hear-back/read-back errors when his air carrier assigns flight numbers ending in the same two numbers into airports and airspace concurrently.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I noticed a Tire Servicing Placard on nose strut of a B-777 aircraft. This placard does not reflect the 'Acceptable Tire Pressure' range listed in the General Maintenance Manual (GMM). [Recommend] either update or remove inaccurate placards. Evening shift. Routine maintenance. [Terminal] Gates.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports finding a Tire Servicing placard on the nose strut of a B-777 aircraft that did not reflect the 'Acceptable Tire Pressure' range listed in their General Maintenance Manual (GMM).
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A Chiller Access Panel came loose and became a flying projectile in the flight deck during landing rollout and braking.  After striking the aft portion of the center instrument pedestal; (in the area of the parking brake location); the panel came to rest on the floor at the base of the center pedestal.  The panel narrowly missed striking and likely severely injuring one or both of us while during a critical phase of flight.   Furthermore; had the door hit the parking brake handle at the right spot it could have set the parking brake at a speed of approximately 140 KTS.  The panel has sharp edges and enough mass that it would have most likely caused very severe injuries to a primary jumpseat occupant; had there been one.   No indications of the panel being loose or unsecured were observed by myself or the First Officer during the accomplishment of the safety and power on inspection.  The landing touchdown was soft and braking was normal.  The First Officer and I inspected the Forward Chiller Access Compartment after the flight and neither of us found any obvious abnormalities or suspicious objects within the area of the compartment we could observe.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reports a galley access panel coming loose in the cockpit during landing and becoming a projectile.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The aircraft was issued the instructions to taxi to 17L via L and ED; hold short of the 17R approach on ED. Pilot read back correctly the hold short instructions.  The pilot then blew past the hold short line causing a go around on short final.  The very next week I had the same situation working Local Control 2 (LC2) and I had to send an aircraft around on very short final with an aircraft in the protection area who had also read back the hold short instructions.  I will fill out additional reports for this occurrence as well.  This continues to be a problem at DEN Tower. The pilots are confused on where to hold short.  When we taxi them north on L or M there are 17R approach signs and lines to hold short. This however is not where we expect them to hold short.  So half of them stop on M or L; but we really want them to make the turn on ED and then there is another 17R approach sign there.  This is an extremely hot spot when we have arrivals to 17R. They are not crossing a runway; but if they cross the approach sign we are required to send the aircraft around on short final. I believe in the 7 years I have been here I have sent over 10 aircraft around on short final because of this problem.  Times that by 40 controllers and we have a pretty big issue here.  So to make it clear we issue; 'Runway 17L taxi via (L or M); ED hold short runway 17R approach.'   On either taxi route there are 2 17R approach lines to hold short of causing confusion.There should be one line depicting where we want the pilot to hold short of; and this should stick out to the pilot and no be something of question.  If you need to paint a purple line or hot pink line and have a different name for it; that may work.  The pilots don't understand what we are asking them to do.  I have filled out 2 pilot deviations this week because of it.




Synopsis: DEN Tower Controller reports of a problem with aircraft not holding short of an approach area to a runway causing aircraft on short final to go-around.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on final to Runway 28 Left following Aircraft Y; by about 4 mile visual approach/separation. At about 600 feet Aircraft X advised they were going around. Local Control asked the reason and the pilot stated 'Wake turbulence.' I coordinated the go around with the departure coordinator.At the time; there was a quartering tailwind; ideal for the wake turbulence remaining active in the trailing aircraft's flight profile.




Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller reported a go-around due to wake turbulence.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending through about 6;000 on way into Gateway Mesa Airport IWA; I was told to descend to 2;500 ft; I responded to the Controller to descend to 2;500 ft. The descent was VMC and being slightly familiar with the area I knew that there was a ridge of mountains I had to cross before descending that low. I slowed my descent so that I could easily cross the mountains with plenary of clearance; once between the last peaks I was still around 4;800 ft in a slow descent and began to continue to descend to the cleared altitude of 2;500 ft.Passing through 3;800 ft the Controller says Aircraft X immediately climb to 4;300 ft the Minimum Safe Altitude in that area is 4;300. Safety was not compromised and I heard nothing else the entire flight. Landed at Mesa without any complications or notices from ATC. Using the vertical track feature in App I can tell that I descended to 3;568 ft then returned to 4;045 ft. before being cleared to continue descent. Conditions were CAVU VMC and at no time was there conflict with terrain as I made sure that I was clear before descending. Flight originated at ZZZ; top altitude was FL250. In hindsight I should of queried the Controller on the altitude before initiating the descent.




Synopsis: Pilot reported descending to an altitude; then having ATC call and advise they were below the MSA.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach to Runway 30L; we noted at about 25 NM from runway that we had the VASI in sight.  Unfortunately; as we continued the approach; we realized the lights we saw were the scoreboard for Levi's Stadium which lines up with Runway 30.Notify aircrew of possible confusion with football stadium lights.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported he confused Levi's Stadium lights for SJC Runway 30L VASI lights.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Upon initial radio call to Ground Control requesting to taxi for deicing; Ground cleared us to taxi to 'CDF Deice pad' via K; E2. We taxied via Taxiway K; then made the 45deg left turn onto Taxiway E2 and saw the numerous deice spots there. We then contacted Iceman; and he told us to come to the 'CDF Deice Pad.' It turns out there is another deice pad further east on the easternmost part of Taxiway E2. This is not depicted on the 10-9 pages.We taxied further east to the easternmost part of Taxiway E2 without further incident.




Synopsis: Pilot reported going to the de-ice pad; but not knowing the de-ice pad they were supposed to go to was further down the taxiway. Reporter claims the further east de-ice pad is not displayed on the DTW 10-9 page.
Date: 201409
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Every winter numerous aircraft depart runways or taxiways that are contaminated with snow/slush/ice. Our Company had a similar event in the past. I believe there is a significant safety hazard at DEN at the junction of D5 and WB. There is a very steep drop off at the end of D5. Should such an event occur while taxiing and turning east bound onto WB from D5 it would lead to significant aircraft damage and bodily injury.I believe the use of D5 should be prohibited if contaminated with any snow/slush or if there are any reports of braking action less than good.




Synopsis: The reporter expressed concern that during winter months with icy taxiways an aircraft transitioning from DEN Taxiway D5 to Taxiway WB may be in danger of a taxiway excursion on the south side of that intersection and risk serious damage or injury because of a forty foot drop off.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G650
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Safety Manager
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A Gulfstream G650ER was scheduled from ZZZ to ZZZZ. The flight was planned close to the aircraft maximum range which depart from ZZZ with 48;200 lbs of fuel and land at ZZZZ with 6;728 lbs of fuel. At 955 NM from destination; ATC advised crew to descend from FL143 to FL116; which was 2 hours prior to their planned descend. Crew explained to ATC several times that they were unable to descend due to fuel performance but ATC repeatedly advised them to follow the level restriction. As aircraft was only allowed to enter the next airspace by lowering to the desired altitude; crew followed ATC instruction and expected the contingency fuel to be used up. Estimated landing fuel was calculated to be around 5;200 lbs upon arrival.At 450 NM from destination; crew were instructed to slow down by ATC which further reduced the estimated landing fuel. They continue explained that further delay would put the aircraft into a fuel critical position. At 100 NM from destination with; ATC instructed the aircraft to make a right orbit and they were number 7 for arrival. Accepting the clearance from ATC would put aircraft in a position to forfeit the diversion option to alternate airport. As the weather was closing in with an active cumulonimbus clouds; lightning activity and gusting ground winds; PIC signified the urgency to avoid critical fuel situation. Aircraft were then expedited to number 3 for arrival and landed uneventful with 4200 lbs arrival fuel. Brief event description was provided to ZZZZ airport and crew submitted an occurrence report to Company Safety Department.The Operational Flight Plan was reviewed and arrival fuel was close to the margin on the Company Minimum Reserve quantity. Chief Pilot performed a briefing to subject crew on Operations Manual Policy and Procedures for In-Flight Fuel Management.




Synopsis: A Safety Manager reported the crew of a Gulfstream experienced a low fuel situation.