elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On approach into ZZZ we were given the visual approach to runway 24. The First Officer was PF (Pilot Flying) at the time and I briefed  him on the terrain that surrounds the airport and how we should be configured and slowed in order to be able to maneuver in the valley to set up for landing. We entered a downwind at 220kts and 8000ft MSL while still on autopilot control. The FO (First Officer) began a slow descent while trying to slow the aircraft to configure flaps. We continued on downwind and selected flaps 8 and 20 and began a base turn around 9 miles from the airport. The autopilot was selected off at this time and we continued descent on the base leg. I instructed the FO to begin turning final and he put the aircraft in about a 15 degree banks without adding power. This increased our descent rate. Around this time we received a CAUTION TERRAIN message from EGWPS. Immediately after that came a single TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP warning message. I took control of the aircraft; increased power; leveled the descent and increased bank to 30 degrees which stopped the EGPWS warnings after a single message. I aligned the aircraft on a 6 miles final on glide path and returned controls to the first officer; who completed a stabilized approach by 1000 ft AGL and a normal landing. We both became task saturated trying to maneuver the aircraft in the valley while configuring the aircraft for landing. I diverted my attention away from the terrain and altitude to look at the airport and instruct the First Officer on lining up the plane on final.  In future landings at this airport; I will be requesting vectors for the ILS approach which will ensure all terrain separation. In times where a visual approach is being made I will be better at scanning inside and outside the cockpit to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft at all times.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that the First Officer failed to add power while initiating a turn onto final resulting in a EGPWS warning.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNT.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D RNT
ATC / advisory: Tower RNT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A quick heads-up for Renton; WA. If you are a few miles final at Renton; Runway 34; you are ALSO on or crossing the ILS Runway 31L BFI. We were vectored all over the place and then cleared for the visual to 34 RNT from a HIGH Right Base; maybe 8 miles out. We had RNT clearly in view; the visual loaded and were intercepting final at about the 5 NM point. RNT Tower said we were lined up for the wrong airport and were on final for BFI and to confirm RNT. We were correctly lining up for 34 RNT and NEVER lining up for BFI. We double checked everything and continued for 34. The gotcha and surprise; though it shouldn't have been; is that if we were looking right down the barrel of BFI 31L as we were rolling final RWY 34 RNT. As approach cleared us and we swapped over to tower; we were also focusing on the usual myriad of bug smashers. At any rate; there isn't an instrument app to RNT 34; only a visual in the box. The visual has the standard 5 nm final. That pattern should be tighter; though I'm not sure how tight. Crews need to be aware of potential conflict with BFI. RNT Tower said BFI is on the warpath for that conflict. A better vector and setup from Approach with a heads-up about what kind of final they needed would have helped. At any rate; no harm. No foul. Approach should have advised us to make the base to final turn at perhaps 3 nm. When checking in with tower they should have advised the same thing. A normal base to final at Renton is a CONFLICT with Boeing.




Synopsis: Business jet Captain reported that while on a long; high right base to landing at RNT the crew was also lined up during the turn for Runway 31L at BFI.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
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 Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing from the gate to [the] runway all was normal with all checks being done. Once taking the runway the PF (pilot flying) took the controls and smoothly advanced the thrust levers. Once airborne he immediately trimmed the aircraft for climb feeling the aircraft responding and visually confirming it on the pitch trim indicator on the EICAS. At approximately 6 degrees pitch; we noticed a stoppage at 6 degrees and immediately after; the PITCHTRIM INOP EICAS message appeared. As the aircraft accelerated the PF felt aft forces too heavy to push forward so he asked for assistance from the PM (pilot monitoring). Upon the PM applying full forward force on the yoke; the PF reduced power to try and relieve pressure. A small pressure change was noted but still required on person with full force to maintain semi level flight and a non-full nose up pitching. Unable to continue with too strong of pressure on the yoke for PF; the PF conducted a positive control pass to PM and it was accomplished within standards to transfer to right seat to take the aircraft. This was done to also allow for immediate action to [advise ATC]. We ran the QRH which instructed us to use the backup trim which we used however worked intermittently. With the QRH complete we turned back to the airport to land. Approach was conducted using power adjustment to help with pitch control due to little to no pitch control with yoke due to forces. Successful landing was conducted with no further incidents. We were escorted by trucks back to the gate.




Synopsis: ERJ-145 First Officer; while conducting a flight systems check; reported loss of pitch trim authority.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two Dangerous Goods (DG) cans loaded on aircraft in positions 1L & 2L; DG manifest page showed 432 LBS of class 2.2 along with other DG in container as accessible DG. FO was shown container in position 1L only and not shown container in position 2L which had only class 2.2. Fire extinguishing hose was not connected to position 2L container. Upon arrival DG specialist discovered and explained to crew that the additional position 2L had a portion of class 2.2 shown on DG Manifest due to a max weight limitation of class 2.2 per container. Referencing the DG position summary it shows 288 LBS of the 432 LBS of class 2.2 listed on the DG manifest was in a second container in position 2L.[Departure airport] DG specialist failed to present FO the second DG container in position 2L and failed to attach extinguishing hose to DG container in position 2LDG manifest does not indicate that there is/are one or more Accessible Dangerous Goods (ADG) containers; must rely on knowledge of container serial numbers on DG position summary to know if there is an additional DG container loaded.Indicate on DG manifest with a symbol that there are more than one ADG containers on board. Relying on FO and Captain to recognize container serial numbers on DG position summary is not reliable. If symbol on DG manifest this would help FO and Captain recognize that there are more than one ADG containers on board and question DG specialist if not shown second container.




Synopsis: A300 FO reported some dangerous good cargo was improperly loaded and the flight crew failed to catch the error.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The propeller turned slowly during starting but did start. All systems were good; alternator was charging and all instruments worked properly. Aircraft lights; radios and other electrical equipment were turned on and in use. Upon takeoff clearance and during the takeoff roll; I noticed static in my headset and dimming of the instrument back lighting. Upon climb out at about 100 to 150 feet AGL; the lights and systems began to flash and then there was a total loss of electric power. I was moments from entering the cloud layer and still had the ground and Tower in sight. I decided to make a hard 360 degree turn and returned to the runway I had just departed from. I had no radio contact with the Tower and did not receive a landing clearance. I could see that there was no aircraft on final or in a 'line up and wait' position. Upon landing I taxied to the first available taxiway at which time the electric systems came back on line. In discussion with an experienced Cessna retractable gear mechanic; I was informed that it was not that uncommon that when you have a low battery that the alternator will kick off when the gear pump is activated. This happens in take-off roll when the aircraft gets light and the 'squat' switch opens enabling the electric gear pump to build pressure for gear retraction. The pump being activated along with all the other electrical equipment puts a very big load on the alternator. The battery on the aircraft was inspected and found to have a dead cell. It was replaced and the aircraft was returned to service.




Synopsis: A C-172RG pilot returned to land immediately after takeoff because of an apparent loss of electrical which was later determined caused by a weak battery and the hydraulic pump starting at lift off in order to pressurize the landing gear retraction system.
Date: 201902
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SBGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
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: The chart for this approach [SBGR ILS Y Rwy 09R] really needs to be rewritten.  In my opinion; showing the missed approach procedures for [Runway] 9L is not necessary and a bit dangerous. I do not care what the other runways' missed [approaches] are. The write up about it should be deleted from the MISSED APCH box and the arrows in the plan view should be deleted. [Company] should get its own version of this approach plate with this changes made to it.

Callback: Reporter stated the approach in question is the SBGR ILS Rwy 09R.



Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the SBGR ILS Rwy 09R approach chart is inaccurate and confusing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were performing a post C-Check maintenance test flight on an MD-10-30 aircraft . During the test flight; during normal engine shutdown/restart procedures; the number one engine failed to relight. After several unsuccessful restart attempts; we performed the appropriate emergency checklists and at 70 miles north of our destination declared an emergency. We landed uneventfully.


Second narrative: During several attempts to relight and altiude changes for thicker air; all attempts to relight failed.


Synopsis: A DC-10-30's number one engine failed to relight after it was shut down on post C-Check maintenance test flight; so an emergency was declared followed by a normal landing.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BDN.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDN
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Winds were favoring Runway 16; all immediate traffic was using the same I called in 'Bend Traffic; Skyhawk [tail number]; holding short at Runway 16 student pilot;' when a yellow experimental had called in 'ahhh Bend Traffic experimental (tail number not remembered) turning right downwind 16' a helicopter called in '[helicopter tail number] experimental I'm on the downwind for 16; where are you?' the experimental did not reply.'Experimental [tail number] turning base on 16' a few moments passed when he comes in final on Runway 34 for a touch and go.'Experimental [tail number] touch and go Runway 16 for left; no right closed traffic' some traffic reports he's going the wrong way and he seemingly calls in a correction to assume the correct traffic pattern.He comes in and goes out of site. The helicopter lands; another plane comes in for final on 16 in the correct traffic pattern. The airplane calls in 'Bend traffic [tail number] clear the active''Bend traffic; experimental [tail number] turning right downwind for 16'I search around for surrounding traffic understanding I have ample time for a takeoff and assume the experimental has made his correction for the proper runway. All seems clear; 'Bend Traffic; Skyhawk [tail number] taking the active 16 for eastbound departure'Upon taking the runway I get to about halfway down and just as I'm pulling up; taxi lights are in view and it's a yellow experimental landing on Runway 34. I quickly pull-up; remembering that there may be right pattern traffic for runway 16; I check my left then quickly veer off to the east while making a call to advise traffic 'Bend Traffic; [tail number]; experimental is currently landing Runway 34'A few troubled aviators in the pattern chime in remarking about the actions of experimental and advising him that he's; once again; not using the correct runway as I departed east.




Synopsis: A Cessna 172 pilot reported an experimental aircraft was landing in the opposite direction.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier XXXX was taxied to Runway 01L for departure; however; Ground Control passed the strip for Company Air Carrier YXYX. I loaded and departed Air Carrier XXXX using and receiving the call sign of Air Carrier YXYX in all read backs. Upwind; I noticed the aircraft execute a right turn vs. the left turn I was expecting. I asked Air Carrier YXYX what departure procedure he was on and was told the SFO8 (as opposed to the PORTE3 SID). Sensing I was given the wrong strip; I asked the flight crew to verify their call sign and destination; they informed me they were Air Carrier XXXX northbound not Air Carrier YXYX heading southwest bound. Both Ground Control and the Flight Crew should have noticed the discrepancy in call sign before reaching the runway. Listening to the read backs would've eventually tipped off the problem. Unfortunately; the aircraft responded to and read back the wrong call sign by the time they were on my Tower frequency.




Synopsis: A SFO Tower Controller had a confused departure event when the wrong strip; with incorrect routing information; was passed along to Local Control with the Flight Crew responding to and with the wrong call sign.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CGZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During climbout from CGZ airport on a dual CFII flight we noticed a helicopter quickly approaching us at the same altitude from our left. They initially appeared to be flying away from us deviating to the right. I knew the right away rules said they should give way to us and I believed they were initially. Shortly after though I noticed they were continuing to fly toward us so I chose to quickly execute a rapid climb. I did not think it was safe to descend or turn away as we had mountains below us the helicopter was approaching us rapidly. I believe the helicopter passed 500 feet below us.




Synopsis: GA instructor pilot reported a Near Mid Air Collision with a helicopter and took evasive action to avoid it.