elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The company intentionally circumvented a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR117). Because we were an international flight and there was no relief pilot scheduled (no augmentation) our maximum actual flight time was limited to 9 hours. There were thunderstorms in the departure corridor and many aircraft were waiting at the runway for takeoff. Also; there was in-trail spacing. If we were to pushback from the gate when we were ready; our 9 hour clock would start and we could potentially time-out while waiting at the runway. For this reason; ZZZ Operations held us at the gate with an updated pushback time of XA:30. When XA:30 approached we requested a push crew on Operations frequency. The response was that we were going to be held at the gate until XB:00. We then questioned the reason for the delayed push and were advised that ZZZ1 Operations had called and requested it because they feared that we would time out. I advised the Operations Center that we would accept no further delay for pushback. We pushed back at XA:35; we were originally scheduled for departure at XX:20. The artificial delay pushed the First Officer and myself deeper into our Window of Circadian Low (WOCL). I advised the [Chief Pilot] that I would file a [report]. The [Chief Pilot] replied that he checked in the ZZZ1 Operations Center and that no one admitted to making a phone call to ZZZ. My suspicion is that it was ZZZ Operations (not ZZZ1) who held us at the gate to prevent a potential cancellation. The initial delay from XX:20 to XA:00 was because of thunderstorms; lightning had forced a ramp closure and the delay could not be prevented. It was not until XA:30 that we became aware of being artificially held from XA:00 to XA:30 (with an additional potential delay until XB:00). The flight was successfully completed. We landed 2 hours and 16 minutes late in ZZZ2. We were both exhausted. NOTE: response from ZZZ Operations was that this was in fact a decision made by them.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported company personnel delayed pushback to avoid an out of duty time situation.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: In EWR; upon taxi out we received the instructions from Ramp Control to taxi B short of K and contact Ground. Upon contacting Ground Control they instructed us to taxi B short of E for [Runway] 4L; we complied and continued taxiing. We were then issued new instructions to taxi S; A then PA to Runway 4L. I taxied right on to what I thought was S; but after making the turn we both noticed that we had actually turned onto Taxiway RG instead.  We then made the left turn onto A and continued on our instructions without further incident and Ground Control did not comment on any wrongdoing. I believe the taxiway confusion first began with the initial change from getting a new taxi route from ATC to join A from parallel B. Usually going to [Runway] 4L; the aircraft would be given Taxiways B to D; but with taxiway construction; parts of B and D were unusable.  More importantly though were the very confusing taxiway signage located at the intersections of Taxiways B; S; J and RG; where they have a direction sign for S that looks like it is actually pointing toward Taxiway RG; which had caused most of the confusion on my part.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain cleared to taxi EWR Taxiways B; S; A; to Runway 4L; turned onto RG then A because the signage at the intersection of Taxiways B; S; J; RG misleads one to see RG as S.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MMUN
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
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: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We landed normally at MMUN on Runway 12L. We reviewed the 10-9 and briefed a taxi plan to Gate X before the Descent Checklist in-flight. On landing the Tower told us to exit A3 and A and contact Ground. We exited normally on A3 and fell in behind another carrier flight who had been given the same taxi instruction. From past experience we expected to taxi via D to C north to E3 to enter ramp. To our surprise the Ground Controller expected us to exit A3 and make a greater-than-90-degree turn onto Taxiway A; which now exists as a parallel full length next to Runway 12L. This taxiway IS NOT depicted on the Jeppesen 10-9 page; nor is it referred to in the information pages for MMUN! The Ground Controller said on the radio; 'I know it is not on the chart.' The omission of this taxiway on the 10-9 should be corrected ASAP.


Second narrative: After landing on 12L; we took the high-speed Taxiway A3. The instructions were to make a right on Alpha and contact Ground. (Other Carrier) landed in front of us and stopped on Taxiway Delta. We were potentially distracted by that; but I was also running the After Landing Flow. As we got to the A3 and Alpha intersection; the signs were a bit confusing; and looking at our charts; the only way we could turn was left to head to Taxiway Delta as we have done every time (both the Captain and I) landing on 12L. So we did go left; it looked like Other Carrier did the same thing; and we had to get a revised taxi plan from ATC. No further issues.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported taxi instructions to exit at a specific intersection that is not depicted on the Jeppesen charts for MMUN airport.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Reporter function: Certificate holder
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was dispatched without my knowledge as the certificate holder. The flight was ordered by the [government agency] to support a wild land fire. The flight was conducted without incident.The event was immediately self-disclosed to the FSDO (Flight Standards District Office) - CHDO (Certificate-Holding District Office). A conference call was conducted regarding the dispatch and the pending request for Certificate of Waiver for relief of 14 CFR 91.313(e). It was the conclusion of the FAA representative(s) that the flight as conducted was in compliance with 14 CFR 91.313(e). I believe this could be subject to alternative interpretation and will continue to work with the FSDO to issue the Certificate of Waiver which has been previously issued to other certificate holders operating restricted category aircraft under 14 CFR 91.313(e).




Synopsis: Certificate Holder reported helicopter was dispatched without approval.
Date: 201705
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On this flight the pilots turned on the seatbelt sign and gave the double chime at the same time. This is happening about 25% of the time on 737 aircraft. They do not seem to understand that we do a trash pickup when the seatbelt sign is turned on the final time. A trash pickup takes time. We are only supposed to do compliance checks when we hear the double chime; then go to our jump seats.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported that the pilots did not comply with Company SOP for turning on the seat belt sign and giving the double chime. They are being accomplished simultaneously on some flights.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Stratolifter (C-135 / 717)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X had a malfunctioning third engine and declared an emergency. He requested to go direct to the final approach fix for the ILS. I cleared him to the fix and descended him to 5;000 feet. I cleared him for approach. Aircraft X landed without incident and canceled IFR.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described the handling of an emergency aircraft.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: 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 Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon descent from 8;000 FT to assigned level of 4;000 FT my engine stopped running (at about 5;000 FT) due to fuel exhaustion. I declared an emergency with ATC and switched fuel tanks from 'RIGHT' tank to 'LEFT' tank using the boost pump switch. The engine immediately restarted. ATC was giving me vectors for an emergency landing when I notified them that I had restarted my engine and was able to continue my approach to landing. I also explained my error to the Controller and apologized for my error. (I should mention that the Controller really did a great job of immediately providing emergency support guidance). I continued with a visual approach and landed. The engine had stopped running because I had failed to manage fuel properly. When I departed; my fuel selector switch was in the 'BOTH' position. Shortly after; I switched to 'RIGHT' tank position to compensate for the fact that the plane always draws heavily off the left tank. My intent was to switch back to 'BOTH' after an hour. I failed to make the switch and exhausted the available fuel from the right tank. Total time that engine was not running was about 15 seconds. Normally; I fly with the fuel selector switch on 'BOTH' and only switch to 'RIGHT' to even the weight when the gauges indicate that the left tank is much lower in fuel than the right. This day I thought I was being proactive and then by not properly monitoring the gauges exhausted the right tank.




Synopsis: C210 pilot experiences engine failure at 5;000 FT due to fuel exhaustion from the right tank. After declaring an emergency and switching fuel tanks the engine restarts and the reporter continues to a normal landing.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PVU
ATC / advisory: Tower PVU
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were doing a practice single engine approach and were instructed to circle west of Runway 36 and that tower would call our base. Later our instructions were changed to 'Follow the single engine aircraft; right downwind abeam the numbers; report traffic in sight.' The student I was working with was struggling with his single engine aircraft control and while we were working together to fix that we believed that we saw the traffic turn final and we turned to follow the traffic; forgetting to inform tower that we had the traffic in sight. There were 6-8 aircraft that the tower was working with in the air; as well as a single controller working both air and ground frequencies. Nobody realized what had happened until the other aircraft we were supposed to be following reported that we had turned onto final approximately 400 feet below him at the same time he turned on final. At this point with tower's help we sped up and the other aircraft slowed down and we were able to resolve the event.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor pilot reported a NMAC after misidentifying the aircraft to follow and turning final prematurely.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While performing initial flight test of new installation of flight instruments and avionics; I experienced failure of primary flight instruments upon departure. I noticed that rotation speed was below normal but insufficient runway distance to abort takeoff. Airspeed indicator and EFIS both failed on departure. As I tried to understand failure and transition to alternative instruments; I failed to turn to assigned vector and climb to assigned altitude during the crosswind departure. It should be noted that the avionics installation included a complete replacement of all instruments and a reconfiguration of the panel. Within approximately 2 minutes; I transitioned to whiskey compass for heading information and a combination of GPS and engine instruments to maintain flight control. During this time; ATC quizzed me on altitude and direction assignments at which time I indicated that I experienced instrument failure and was transitioning to whisky compass and climbing for terrain clearance.I departed the pattern and requested ATC clearance to circle east of the airport to get situation better under control. I returned to airport and requested permission to land noting that the airspeed indicator was inoperative and I was uncertain about the altimeter. I declined to declare an emergency. I completed pattern entry and landed without incident and thanked Tower for their assistance. The avionics installer later determined that there was a problem with the pitot-static system likely caused by contamination of the pitot tube and a leak in the static system even though it passed inspection. Root cause of the problem is that while I had conducted an extensive preflight inspection and the verified the pitot-static system check was not prepared to handle a complete failure on departure. I was slow to transition to alternate instruments (GPS and whiskey compass) but fortunately was able to recover within a few minutes.




Synopsis: PA-24 pilot lost his primary flight instruments shortly after takeoff because of a defective pitot-static system.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent; I completed my routine system check via ECAM. The crew oxygen level was 270 PSI. During preflight; it was 1;280 PSI. The minimum is 550 PSI with no jump seaters. We had not used oxygen during the flight. We used the QRH which directed us to descend to 10;000 feet or the MSA if higher. We declared an emergency with ATC and Center descended us to 15;000 feet which was the MSA at that point. Once clear of the mountains; Approach Control descended us to 10;000 feet. Once I had declared the emergency; I informed Dispatch. He asked if he wanted to get Maintenance on the line and I said we were already close so it was not necessary. We elected to continue because it was so close and we were over the mountains as it was. I informed the lead Flight Attendant about our situation and briefed the passengers that there would be emergency equipment by the runway as a matter of standard routine but no need to worry. The rest of the approach was uneventful. We elected not to bring up emergency O2 bottles because we were already close to landing and the QRH said it was optional.


Second narrative: Just prior to top of descent after the briefings were completed; the Captain noticed the crew oxygen was 270 PSI. The QRH was completed and a descent to MSA was completed. Further descent was completed to 10;000 feet. The Captain declared an emergency and the flight landed without incident. I do not recall any deviations or errors from FAR's and SOP. During the preflight the oxygen was 1;260 PSI.


Synopsis: A319 Captain discovers low crew oxygen pressure during descent and elects to declare an emergency with ATC to expedite the descent. A normal landing ensues. Pressure had been normal during preflight.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Oil Seals
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff prior to flap retraction altitude; we received a left engine oil pressure message. I noticed oil gauge was fluctuating and pressure was below 25 PSI. We cleaned up the aircraft and contacted ATC we needed to return to airport. After we turned to the airport I assumed radios and called for immediate action items for left engine oil pressure message. Consequently; oil pressure returned above 25 PSI and began to fluctuate around 45-50 PSI in flight. We [Requested Priority Handling] and returned to the airport for a precautionary landing. Maintenance informed they put in over 4 quarts of oil after inspection. After maintenance topped off oil; we ferried aircraft to ZZZ since oil burn was higher than normal.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported that left engine oil pressure began to fluctuate and dropped below 25 PSI with quantity also fluctuating; causing a return to the airport.