elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
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: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: With both engines running and the Before Takeoff Checklist complete; we approached the hold line for Runway 9L. The Captain stopped the aircraft at the hold line and inadvertently shut down the number two engine; [intending to set] the parking brake. I did not see this happen because shortly after we stopped; the Tower cleared us for takeoff and I was busy responding to the radio call with my attention outside to clear final and verify we were turning onto Runway 9L. While applying power and slowly turning onto the active runway to line up for takeoff; the Captain stated that the number two generator had gone offline which I verified on the overhead panel. I immediately looked at the engine gages and observed zero percent N1 on the number two engine; informed the Captain the number two was not running; and radioed the Tower we needed to exit the runway at Taxiway T. We exited at Taxiway T at normal taxi speed; got back in line on Taxiway M; analyzed and discussed what had just happened; started the number two engine; did our flows; ran the Before Takeoff Checklist and departed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain stopped to hold short of the takeoff runway and meant to set the parking brake but instead shutdown number two engine just before takeoff clearance was issued.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E U90
ATC / advisory: TRACON U90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the DINGO 5 arrival into TUS; after waypoint MAVVA; I continued on the charted 075 degree heading passing through the Runway 11L localizer course; not complying with the textual instruction to intercept the I-TUS localizer course. ATC gave me vectors back around to re-intercept the localizer course; and a normal landing was made.The cause of the event was a failure to cross-check the textual instructions with what is displayed on the chart. Contributing factors were as follows: 1) A 'Descend Via' clearance was not issued. ATC instructed to 'Descend and maintain 8;000 feet; and EXPECT a visual approach.' I misinterpreted that to mean he would provide vectors to the final approach course; or clear me for a visual approach passing MAVVA.  2) I found the verbiage on the chart confusing where it states 'Runway 11L EXPECT approach clearance'. I interpreted that to mean once established on the 075 heading from MAVVA; not upon intercepting the localizer; as normally you would not intercept a localizer without ATC clearance or prior to accepting a visual approach.To avoid a recurrence of this event; a thorough briefing covering all noted and textual information should be conducted and cross checked prior to every landing. While my briefing did cover all of the information on the plan-view of the arrival; I missed a crucial piece of information solely located in the textual description that was not well depicted nor defined on the plan-view. It would have been helpful if ATC had offered us a visual approach earlier; directed us to intercept the localized after MAVVA and THEN expect approach clearance; or have the instruction to Intercept I-TUS localizer clearly printed on the plan view. It is worthy to note; the ATC controller stated 'Yeah; you're not the first airliner to do this' both over the frequency and on the telephone while speaking with him after landing. This leads me to believe that this could be a common mistake that could be corrected easily with a revised; emphasized; note on the arrival chart.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a track heading deviation while on the DINGO 5 approach to TUS.  The reporter cited 'Descend Via' vs. 'Descend and maintain' phraseology and confusing chart verbiage contributed to event.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Prior to a training flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; I weather briefed and filed a flight plan with Center. At this time I clearly stated I was doing patterns at ZZZ1 and wanted to return and tried to go over exactly how that was done. The briefer indicated I would keep my code; do my patterns and call on the frequency I was last on; and get my new sqwak code for return to ZZZ.My instructor and I departed ZZZ flew to ZZZ1 and did all procedures at no time did a full stop; departed the pattern and called approach to activate in bound flight plan.Controller did not like us asking for the code and inbound flight plan in the air. He indicated we had to go to a full stop and call on the phone; not in the air. We communicated our understanding; and that this was our misunderstanding from the briefer and we would do that next time. The controller gave us the sqwak and it was an uneventful return to ZZZ. The controller said 'you are the second plane that has done this' during our indication. On the return to ZZZ the Airport manager called Center to make sure I would not be written up for a deviation. It was indicated to the Manager to tell us this would only be ok at ZZZ2 ( to call in the air) but not ZZZ1; to request in air for the return flight plan and code.




Synopsis: Single Pilot reported a possible deviation from the clearance and problems communicating with the controller while airborne.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL410; the aircraft began a shallow decent followed by a cyan auto pilot A/B fail. This was followed by a sharper decent and at approx. 40;600 feet we advised ATC we unable to maintain altitude. After completing memory items QRC and QRH we were able to regain control of the aircraft and level at FL390. We diverted to ZZZ and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.

Callback: The reporter states that horizontal stabilizer trim actuators were replaced initially by maintenance; followed by stabilizer control electronics.

Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A CE680 at FL410 begins a shallow descent which then causes the auto pilot to disengage. The descent steepens and the crew is initially unable to arrest the descent. Control is regained at FL390 after completing memory items and QRH procedures. Secondary trim is selected and the diversion is flown without further difficulty.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During C-check on Aircraft X; Job Card# 731-XXX-XX-XX was performed. This Job Card requires the removal and reinstallation of both radio altimeter transceivers. During a normal C-Check the CAT III upgrade paperwork is automatically attached to the hangar work package to cover any Cat III items disturbed during the check. This zonal inspection did not have the CAT III paperwork attached to the package and I failed to notice the missing task card. The aircraft was then turned over to day shift who were unaware of the need for an upgrade and the aircraft left without a CAT III upgrade being accomplished. While working a phase check the following night I noticed that the aircraft also did not have a CAT III upgrade task card attached which reminded me of the aircraft from the previous night and caused me to look into the issue. This is where I realized the mistake and I reported to my supervisor. Supervisor from Maintenance Control was contacted and we were told the aircraft now parked would be downgraded by the flight crew and flown to ZZZ where it could be upgraded.Preventative Measures: The majority of checks done in the C-check environment automatically have CAT III upgrade paperwork attached. Some -800 Zonal and Phase checks do not have these task cards automatically attached to the package. Due to this in the C-check environment we are accustomed to the CAT III being automatic and when it was not in this case I missed it. I believe the best option would be for this task card to be automatically issued for any aircraft in the C-check environment or anytime a c-check; phase check; or zonal check is issued in any environment.




Synopsis: Technician reported missing a required CAT III upgrade after maintenance actions and the aircraft departed on a scheduled flight.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were planned to take dangerous goods.  Our ACARS was inoperative; so the final text was sent via email. I thought that would suffice since we had taxied out and were not able to obtain the final copy over our printer. I was advised to file a report; so here it is. We also received our takeoff data and final weights this way.


Second narrative: The ACARS on our aircraft became inoperative shortly after initialization. Some of the messages that we did receive prior it becoming inoperative was the initial Dangerous Goods message. The ACARS was eventually deferred by Maintenance and we taxied without receiving a hard copy of the final Dangerous Goods message. We contacted Dispatch regarding our need for the final weights and final Dangerous Goods messages and he said that he could email those to us; which he did prior to our departure.


Synopsis: A-320 flight crew reported; and Load Planning verified; aircraft received departure DG final documentation via email due to inoperative ACARS.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I listened to the AWOS and noted wind at 5mph from 90 degrees with gusting to 10mph. On final approach for landing; I experienced light to moderate wind gusts that bounced the aircraft around a bit. Under those conditions; I decided to limit flaps to 20 degrees and maintain a slightly higher airspeed since the runway length was over 6;000 ft. and gusting was intermittent. Upon crossing over the runway threshold at 65kts; I reduced power to idle and flared 10 feet over the runway. The aircraft floated in the ground effect for a long distance and ultimately when the wheels made contact it bounced up into the air again and floated further in ground effect. At that moment; a wind gust pushed the tail to the left. I tried to correct with opposite rudder but the deflection did not correct the alignment before the wheels made contact with the runway. The aircraft was by then oriented at a 25-30 degree angle to the right of runway centerline. The aircraft then bolted violently to the right and rolled quickly off the runway into the grass; heading toward a rock lined; 4-ft deep drainage ditch just beyond a taxiway. As I attempted to maneuver the rolling aircraft back to the left; it began to skid and tip over to the right. I righted the aircraft to avoid driving the right wing and nose into the ground and potentially flipping the aircraft; but by then my only choice was to either roll toward the ditch or in the direction of hangars to the right. I braked but wasn't able to stop before the aircraft rolled into the ditch.The left wingtip; propeller and landing gear received damage. No injuries to myself or damage to airport property resulted. I immediately contacted the aircraft owner and airport authorities; who arrived to the scene quickly to assess the situation. The airport manager confirmed no damage to airport property. The aircraft owner and airport manager coordinated to make arrangements to remove the aircraft from the ditch.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported loss of directional control during a crosswind landing; which resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After startup with a student; we performed a brake check; both sides; with a positive exchange of controls and no issues. After receiving our taxi clearance for an intersection departure; I observed my student taxiing faster than usual; and off centerline. I told him to slow down and bring the aircraft back to centerline; and he informed me there was a problem with the right brake. I took control; was unable to slow the aircraft; and with the runway hold short line approaching notified ground of my inability to stop. I swung to the right; and used brake to perform a 180 degree turn at speed; but wasn't able to turn tight enough to avoid crossing. I notified tower of my crossing; and cleared the runway environment. I got a clearance to taxi back to parking; where we ended the attempted flight; and shut the aircraft down until maintenance could diagnose and resolve the issue.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a runway incursion due to brake failure and loss of control of the aircraft.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] cleared for takeoff Runway 31 at LGA. Landing traffic for Runway 22 was reported at 2.3 miles. After brake release we received a blocked radio call that was unreadable. A second radio call from Tower cancelled our takeoff clearance. At the same time I noticed a private jet approaching the over run [for Runway 22]. Takeoff was rejected somewhere between 60 KTS and 80 KTS. Reverser and manual braking were used and we exited the runway at Taxiway S prior to Runway 22. Flight attendants reported modest deceleration with no passenger complaints. We returned to Runway 31 for a normal takeoff. I think the aircraft on final was closer than 2.3 miles; but since it was a small private jet it appeared to be further away than it actually was. Takeoff spacing was too tight even if Tower had told us to be ready for an immediate takeoff. I think this was primarily a spacing problem but if we had received the first cancel takeoff clearance we would have had a rejected takeoff right after brake release.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reports being cleared for takeoff on Runway 31 at LGA then having the takeoff clearance canceled at 60 KTS due to traffic landing on Runway 22. The clearance may have been canceled earlier but the transmission from the Tower was blocked.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
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: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to join the transition to the TEJAS4 STAR into IAH; and issued a clearance to climb from 11;000 ft to 17;000 ft. The Autopilot was on. I heard [Houston] Center give a traffic report to a [military] trainer; an '[Aircraft] out of 11 for 17' which I assumed was us. Center did not advise us of the traffic; but I was looking for it and I saw the traffic on the TCAS; descending and converging. Just before 12;000 ft. we had a TCAS TA then RA; at one point commanding vertical speed in excess of 3;000 fpm. The TCAS indicator was a red square; well inside the 3 mile ring on the TCAS screen and converging to our location. It appeared the [military trainer] was descending right on top of us; much like the TCAS avoidance exercise in recurrent training. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and pushed the nose down; taking evasive action as the TCAS commanded a high rate of descent to avoid collision. We announced our TCAS descent to Houston Center. After the event was over; we continued our climb to 17;000 ft. I queried the controller regarding the event. The [military trainer] pilot stated he had visual with us the entire time which I find dubious as we were far too close. At one point the TCAS indicated 300 ft. vertical separation.  We did not have a visual with the [military trainer]; largely due to the fact that he was approaching from our right side and was obscured by the rising sun. The Flight Attendant confirmed no injuries to passengers or herself and everyone was seated. I am unsure if the [military trainer] is equipped with TCAS; as the aircraft made no observable attempt to climb as would be expected when both aircraft are equipped with TCAS.Both ATC and the other pilot made critical errors in separation. ATC cleared the [military trainer] to descend too close to us and through our altitude; and the [military trainer] pilot made no discernible effort to alter flight path despite maintaining visual with us.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an NMAC during departure from IAH.