elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The DGS [Docking Guidance System] system (the not recording an out time until the aircraft moves part) is new at LAX. Even newer at Gate XXB; our gate. Today we released brakes at 51 and started pushing immediately. The system is supposed to record an out time when the aircraft moves. That would be X51 local; X52 at the very latest. But it showed an out time of X58! Pay wasn't a factor here as we arrived at ZZZ early. But flight time is. I realize that cheating the flight crews out of pay isn't an FAR violation. But lying about the flight time is a direct violation of FAR 117. This flight time was recorded at least 6 minutes; maybe 7 minutes short of what it actually was. Once again; a direct violation of FAR 117. Even though I can't speak for all of the gates; if the company is lying about every flights time by 6-7 minutes that could be a serious FAR flight time violation.




Synopsis: Captain reported that Company DGS [Docking Guidance System] system is not recording flight time correctly for FAR compliance.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with my son who is a student pilot. He was sitting left seat. I was PIC sitting in right seat. Weather that day was calm with occasional gusting winds due to weather conditions. We were practicing take offs and landings at ZZZ1 (home airport) and ZZZ. Winds at ZZZ were light and variable. At time of incident; wind were less than 5 knots coming from 270 (crosswind). We were on our second landing for this trip at ZZZ. I was talking him through a normal landing; we were set to touch down approximately mid field. As we were touching down; a heavy gust came from behind. This pushed our touch down location further down the runway. With plenty of remaining runway to finish the landing safely; the student pilot braked too hard and locked up both main wheels. This caused the plane to skid and blow both tires. There was no property damage other than the main tires. The plane was disabled on the runway. The student radioed to TRACON to notify them the airport had a disabled aircraft on the runway. Shortly thereafter; the airport manager arrived on site and closed the airport. It took 45 minutes to move the aircraft off the runway at which time the airport was reopened. Both tire were replaced by an onsite mechanic. The aircraft was then flown back to ZZZ1 without further incidence.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported an incident when excessive braking on landing resulted in two blown tires.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the ZZZZZ1 STAR. Just prior to level off at a higher altitude; the controller cleared us to descend via the STAR to 12;000 feet. The PF pointed to the altitude as I set it. However; he went out of VNAV to FLCH because he thought he heard descend to 12;000 feet now. I was busy with a frequency change and getting the new ATIS; and I missed the change in pitch mode. When I looked up; I noticed we were approaching 15;000 feet even though the fix just ahead of us had a at or above 16;000 foot restriction. I called it out and the PF immediately leveled off at 15;000 feet. I immediately informed the Controller and asked if he wanted us to climb back to 16;000 feet. He said we could just 'descend to 12;000 feet.'  There was no conflict with other traffic.I believe this occurred for a number of reasons. It was a very difficult 3-day pairing made longer because of COVID. We were all exhausted; it was a high-workload environment; and the PF had not flown in over a year. He had trouble hearing ATC the entire trip which we attributed to his being off a year. Obviously; there was a breakdown in Verbalize; Verify and Monitor. Lesson learned: especially when tired and in a high-workload environment; strict adherence to SOP is essential.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the PF overshot the assigned altitude during arrival and attributed it to fatigue; workload and the PF had not flown in a year.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I'm writing this report many hours after it happened so there's some fogginess as to the exact timing and actions of all that happened. It all happens so fast when you're in the moment. The following is my best recollection. BOS Tower had just cleared us for Takeoff (TO) on runway 9. First Officer (FO) was the Pilot Flying. EPRs set to 1.05; we started to roll. We did a low speed Reject (approx. 20-30Kts) due to NAV: ADR 1 Fault. Tower then cleared us to make the next left at 'K'. I wouldn't say that we were completely past 'K' but when transitioning from the TO to Reject to Taxi phase all in the span of a few seconds and a few hundred feet; I'm not expecting a clearance to turn off at an 'unnatural' reverse high speed taxiway that is almost abeam my present position. At this point; we were pretty much abeam 'K'. It was super dark; no 'K' intersection lighting; 'K' is a reverse high speed (almost a 130 degree turn) so there were no taxi lines to even clue us in on guidance when getting off from Runway 9. Also; since we were on the runway; the iPad displayed my departure SID and not the taxi chart. When I'm on a runway; I'm not even attempting to fumble with my ipad while simultaneously trying to taxi off an active runway. Normally; once I'm off the runway do I start to consult my taxi chart. When ATC issues a clearance to 'make the next left'; I'm typically not looking abeam my position but up forward more. I moved forward and held short of 4L. The aircraft on a few miles final for 4L was told to [go around]. No separation was lost; as verified by our conversation with ATC when we called him.


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


Synopsis: Aircrew of a jet transport executed a rejected take-off. Tower cleared aircraft to clear runway at a specific taxiway but due to the night conditions; lack of line guidance; and close proximity of the taxiway; the crew could not see the required taxiway.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While taxiing to the runway; Flight Attendant called the flight deck and informed me that there was a passenger with a 'smart bag' on board and that it had a non-removable battery. She said that she had just reviewed the regulations concerning smart bags and realized that the bag was not authorized in the cabin. I informed the Captain and we returned to the gate where a customer service agent disassembled the bag enough to remove the battery. The Captain said he had been aware of the bag but thought it was authorized because the battery was not removable. The event was caused by a misunderstanding of the rules. A contributing factor was the unusual situation of a bag with non-removable battery. A habit of taking the time to reference the regulations when there is a doubt may be a good way to avoid such mistakes. Also asking other crew members for input; as I was not aware of the situation until we were taxiing.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported receiving Flight Attendant notification during taxi of an unauthorized smart bag in the passenger cabin.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent through about 11;000 FT into [destination]; Captain pulled power to idle to begin slowing. We received an 'Engine Oil' aural warning along with master warning; triple chime; and left engine oil pressure message. Captain continued to fly the airplane; and we discovered that the engine was spooling down. I pulled out the QRH and ran the 'Single Engine' procedures checklist. We didn't declare an emergency right away; the Captain continued to fly and did the radios; while I ran the checklist. We decided to attempt a relight since we were on a downwind. I completed the single engine procedures; determined that no damage was suspected. I then complied with the relight procedures in the QRH. When I pressed the start button; nothing happened; the N2 never spooled; and it remained at 0 the entire time. I pressed the button for about 10 seconds; decided it wasn't to be. I completed the checklist; which then led to a Single Engine Landing checklist. At this point the Captain declared an emergency. I completed the Single Engine Landing checklist. I then called the Flight Attendant and we discussed the situation; and I gave her the details and instructions depending on what our outcome would be. I then made a quick PA alerting the passengers to the presence of the emergency vehicles that would be out as a precaution. We then entered about a 10 mile left base; landed and taxied to the gate without any further incident. Everyone seemed to be happy as they got off the airplane. I think we handled it well; tried to relight the engine; then decided that it was best to move on and prep for a single engine landing. We communicated well with each other as well as the passengers.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported on descent they received a left engine oil pressure warning; likely as a result of a flameout. A restart attempt was unsuccessful and the flight landed after declaring an emergency.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Staffing; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working a combined position; just had a possible loss of separation with 2 other aircraft and was writing down that information when I heard the collision avoidance alarm go off. I noticed that Aircraft X was directly over Aircraft Y with 500 FT separation. I quickly issued traffic and Aircraft X said he had an RA. I did not see the resolution. I don't know if he climbed or just leveled off. Staff a hand off; sequencer or extra set of eyes to help out when it's that busy.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a TCAS RA event between an IFR and VFR aircraft when distracted by other duties; the reporter stated an extra set of eyes would have been helpful.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the approach briefing for RNAV GPS 35 at AVL; I had pointed out to the Captain that due to obstacles and terrain characteristics in the vicinity of AVL; ATC would keep us high until very close to the station. As anticipated; Atlanta Center kept us at a high altitude (I do not remember exactly; but well above 15;000) until about 12-15 miles from the station. Upon being handed to Asheville Approach; and considering the terrain; night time; and the need for sufficient airspace to descend to a reasonable altitude in order to execute an effective and stable approach; I requested radar vectors for the RNAV GPS 35 (glideslope for the ILS was out of service). Approach instructed us to descend to 6;000 and to a heading that would put the aircraft on a downwind to Runway 35.  Subsequently; the Approach Controller gave us a heading that put the aircraft on a left base leg to Runway 35; and instructed us to descend from 6;000 to 5;100. During this descent; the GPWS issued an aural TERRAIN caution. We immediately initiated a climb; advised ATC of the situation; and stopped the climb at 6;000; at which point the GPWS silenced. In addition; we advised we had the field in sight; and were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 35.  The minimum sector altitude corresponding to the left base leg to Runway 35 stated 6;200 ft. We should have queried ATC of the validity of the instruction to descend from 6;000 to 5;100.  From a CRM standpoint; The Jeppessen AVL Airport Reference Page alludes to the fact that a high rate of descent in the vicinity of the airport may cause a GPWS activation due to mountainous terrain in the vicinity (We did not exceed 1500 fpm); hence an emphasis on this matter during the approach briefing; in conjunction to minimizing the rate of descent to; perhaps; no more than 700 fpm; more than likely would have avoided the situation.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a CFIT event during approach under Approach Control which was followed by an uneventful visual landing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm noticing a very concerning trend on our marshaling throughout our system. I have seen numerous times where when parking at the gate; the Marshaler isn't even looking up at the cockpit anymore. They seem to be focused on the chocks! Now with the new Ops coming out; I'm even more concerned for safety. I have had a few instances were either one or both engines were running; and the Marshaler gave the all clear signal; while my hand was showing the 'not clear' (fist) in the window. Of course they didn't see it; because again; they are so focused on the chocks! I had a couple of incidents where both engines were still running; icy ramp; stopped aircraft with 'do not approach hand in window.' Shortly; thereafter; the Blue External Power Available light illuminated! In other words; they were plugging in external power on an icy ramp with the #2 engine still running! Have we forgotten that the front of the engine has suction! I believe we had warning markings for the engine footprint at one time. I have talked to the Ramp Supervisors after these situations. They all agree training and flow through is an issue. There are a few Ramp Agents out there that do know how to marshal safely; and understand hand signals; but they seem to be fairly rare right now. With the winter season upon us; I hope we can address this expediently; or I fear someone is going to get hurt! Whoever is training these Ramp Agents perhaps needs to evaluate their own training skills. These Marshalers are not following a simple procedure that we have done for decades. If not; I fear someone is going to get hurt at some point! Let's put safety first on this one please!




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported numerous SOP violations in ramp operations that could lead to injury.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initial setup and brief was LINKK arrival; with visual ILS 27. Weather was clear; with excellent visibility. At TOD IAH changed to East flow; and we were given the NNCEE arrival. Approach control said expect RNP Y 9. We requested 8R since our parking gate was on the north side. Were told 'standby; we'll see'. Frequency change; and no reference to 8R request. Then cleared RNAVP Y 9 via HOWLN; maintain 200 knots. I observed Pilot Flying choose RNAV Y 9; with HOWLN transition. Other radio calls and congestion and nonstandard speed change prevented from looking into the LEGS page to see it tie into the HOWLN we were proceeding toward. Immediately after TEXXN we realized it did not turn and turned the aircraft with heading select.Approach queried about being outside the turn as our actual heading turned through approximately 330. Approach control said maintain current heading'. I immediately asked what heading do you want; we are currently in the turn. First response was 260 heading. We initiated a turn reversal; then approach said; I see you are in the turn; turn right 060; descend 3000; cleared the visual runway 9. I acknowledged. Soon thereafter were given 'maintain 6000; turn heading 100.' Responded with climbing back to 6000. Controller asked if we were still visual with 9. (It was perfectly clear; with unusual 30+ mile visibility). Responded yes; still visual. Re-cleared the visual runway 9. Flew the visual to an uneventful landing."




Synopsis: First Officer reported failure to complete FMS setup following three approach clearance changes.