elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our aircraft encountered wake turbulence following a Boeing 787 on a visual approach to Runway 24R at approximately 2500 ft MSL. Both Approach and Tower advised our flight of possible wake turbulence. The First Officer was flying and followed all recommendations for wake turbulence avoidance. Despite his efforts; the aircraft experienced wake turbulence induced deviations to pitch; roll; and yaw. I reported the wake turbulence encounter to LAX Tower. The aircraft did not sustain damage; and no injuries occurred to crew or passengers.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a wake turbulence encounter at approximately 2500 ft on approach to LAX Runway 24R in trail of a B787.
Date: 201410
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi; approaching the crossing roadway in the alley a small cargo van rapidly approached the aircraft from left to right. The van came from an angle and was only noticed by the flight deck crew just before we lost sight of him under the nose of the aircraft. Although the taxi speed was slow; to avoid collision; aggressive braking was required. The #1 Flight Attendant was standing and the jolt caused her injury.


Second narrative: Taxing out on the north line a van cut across our taxi path. I applied both brakes to avoid the vehicle. We were approximately 75 yards into our taxi at 5 mph. More driver training for ground workers. Strobes attached to landing gear that are activated when the aircraft is moving.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports a near ground collision with van that fails to yield during taxi out from the gate.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tow bar breakaway on forward pull after pushback from the gate. Abrupt braking to full stop; [but] no aircraft damage. Several flight attendants were thrust into bulkhead or furnishings. All completed the flight; [and] several filed possible injury reports.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported potential Flight Attendant injuries during push back due to tow bar breakaway.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon checking on with ATL approach; we were told to expect Runway 9R. Our initial brief was for Runway 8L because that is the typical Runway assignment when flying the CHPPR arrival. The FO (First Officer) briefed the Runway change. A subsequent Approach Controller cleared us to descend via the arrival and also that we were cleared for the ILS PRM [Precision Runway Monitor] Runway 9R approach. We had to again brief for the PRM approach because they were not advertising PRM's in the ATIS. We got a little behind the airplane and approach asked to start our descent and then handed us off to Tower. I can't recall if we were given a speed to maintain to the 5-mile fix. I checked on with ATL Tower and we were cleared to land on approximately 8-10 mile final. I recall the Approach Controller on the monitor frequency asking the aircraft behind us to slow to final approach speed. Less than a minute later; at about 1;200 feet. AGL; Tower instructed us to discontinue the approach; climb to 4;000 feet; and gave us headings. We maintained normal and stable approach at all times. We were told that the reason was because we slowed to our final approach speed at around a 6-mile final. I assumed then that we had insufficient spacing with the aircraft behind us. We were vectored for the same approach which concluded normally.We had an apparent loss of spacing on final approach which resulted in ATC cancelling our approach clearance. We were task saturated with Runway and approach changes; and with ATC instructions. We began to slow to our final approach speed sooner than ATC anticipated. We could have better anticipated the sequence of events when transitioning from the arrival to the approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported ATC re-sequenced them because they slowed to final approach speed at around a 6-mile final inbound to ATL.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was a PBI lander on the SHRVY1 arrival. The Pilot checked on with normal speed until RACNO; then published speed. The Pilot asked for normal speed along the arrival; to which I approved until TARTY (the PBI boundary fix); then published speeds. Aircraft Y was a ZZZ-TPA flight at FL180; on course.As Aircraft X made the turn at RACNO; the conflict alert began to flash. Aircraft X was already leaving FL190 in a descent per the arrival; and the separation was not lost at this point. I asked Aircraft X to expedite through and report leaving 17;000. I then called the traffic to him and asked him to report Aircraft Y in sight. He reported the aircraft insight as he entered the 3 mile bubble around Aircraft Y. I instructed him to maintain visual separation to which he responded with the appropriate response. No further incident occurred between these aircraft.This was a mistake on my part. I had a hoop on Aircraft Y specifically for this traffic and didn't get back around to Aircraft X to stop him due to the volume of the sector. I need to be more proactive and attentive with the low flights that cross the SHRVY arrival.Fatigue likely played some role in this event as our entire area has worked incredibly hard and for many hours during the holiday week. We've also had many controllers out; lowering our staffing even more. This is in no way an excuse for the error; merely a factor.




Synopsis: MIA Center Controller reported a loss of separation between to IFR aircraft.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow
Light: Night
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During takeoff roll; the Captain advanced the throttles and selected the takeoff button to get takeoff thrust. The power advanced; but at a very slow rate. The thrust would not advance to take-off thrust. The Captain selected the thrust button again with no change in thrust. We aborted take-off at approximately 135 knots. The aircraft was safely stopped on the runway and returned to the gate without incident.


Second narrative: Upon throttle up and engine stabilization CA pressed TOGA buttons for autothrottle engagement per SOP. Autothrottles did not engage. CA moved throttles further forward and pressed TOGA again and no autothrottle. By then we had moved approximately 2;000 feet down runway and it was blowing snow conditions. Engines did not develop more than 50% power. CA aborted Takeoff at 135 knots IAS.


Synopsis: B777 crew describe a rejected takeoff at 135 knots when autothrust would not engage.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ignition Electrical Supply
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During initial pushback and starting the #2 engine on right ignition; the #2 engine failed to light off. The crew completed the QRH for an aborted engine start. There were no circuit breakers open when the crew looked. The Captain contacted Dispatch/Maintenance and notified Maintenance that the #2 engine failed to light off. Maintenance asked that the crew attempt a second start. That was accomplished with the same failure to light off; the QRH for an aborted engine start was completed a second time.Maintenance advised the Captain that the right ignition could be placed on MEL via pilot action if the motor started normally on the left ignition; the crew completed a normal start on the left ignition. Maintenance and the Captain completed the MEL procedure while the FO (First Officer) notified Ground Control and the passengers that we were going to be delayed for a few minutes; but would be taxiing out shortly.Once the Captain completed the MEL paperwork; the flight taxied out and departed normally. Upon arrival in ZZZ1 the crew was informed that a Maintenance Technician was required to apply the MEL to the right ignition and that only the left ignition could be completed as a pilot action.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported the use of an incorrect MEL.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRQ.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CRQ
ATC / advisory: Tower CRQ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the Local Control position. There was a moderate level of VFR traffic and complexity. Aircraft Y called inbound from the southwest and was instructed to make left traffic. Aircraft X was VFR on final for runway 24. Aircraft Z was in the VFR traffic pattern; right closed traffic. When Aircraft Y reached the left downwind; she was instructed that the tower would call her base turn. She responded; acknowledging that she understood the tower would instruct her when to turn base. As the 3 aircraft approached parallel positions (Aircraft X on final; Aircraft Z extended right downwind; Aircraft Y extended left downwind) Aircraft Y turned base; directly towards Aircraft X. I immediately instructed Aircraft Y to turn back to the downwind and issued a traffic alert. Aircraft Y returned to the downwind as Aircraft X reported them in sight. Aircraft Y seemed completely unaware of what she was supposed to do even after acknowledging the clear instructions that were issued. Pilot training. Don't just read back the controller's instructions to him/her. Be sure to understand the instructions. If they are unclear; or you just don't comprehend them; ask the controller to clarify.




Synopsis: CRQ Tower Controller reported a pilot was given an instruction and read it back correctly. Pilot turned against instructions causing an airborne conflict.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCI.TRACON, MO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCI
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Pilot reported that an unmanned aircraft just flew above him. Unmanned aircraft restrictions. The floor of the Class B was 4000 feet MSL. So the unmanned aircraft might have been in the Class Bravo Airspace.




Synopsis: MCI TRACON Controller reported a VFR Pilot at 3;500 FT saw an unmanned aircraft fly directly above him and it may have been in Class B airspace.
Date: 201208
Location: N03.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: CTAF N03
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This report is to inform those of concern on the daily operations in and out of N03. We operate an aircraft in and out of N03 on a daily basis. I'm concerned with landing at N03 without a slope indicator. The PAPI has not been working for several months now and I believe it is a safety concern for all aircraft operating into N03; specifically at night. There are several trees at the approach end of [Runway] 24 that can not be seen at night and is a safety concern for all. The trees are clearly in the approach path of Runway 24. This situation needs to be addressed ASAP before an accident occurs.

Callback: The Reporter is very concerned about all aircraft arriving on Runway 24 but particularly about transient pilot night arrivals because the 100 FT plus tall trees cannot be seen. Even local pilots may loose situational awareness and forget about them. The Reporter's first suggestion is return the PAPI to service. The second suggestion is to cut the trees down but there are political and neighborhood objections to that solution. The Airport is attempting to find funds to repair or replace the PAPI but in the mean time this is a very dangerous situation.



Synopsis: The N03 Runway 24 PAPI is inoperative and is needed because of trees at or above 100 FT on the final approach descent path. The encroachment is particularly dangerous during night arrivals when the trees cannot be seen.
Date: 202201
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Lead Technician; Technician
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Towing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We began approaching hanger both wing walkers (Name and Name1) were in place; Crew Chief (Name3) was guiding us into the gate. As we got closer to our stoppage point; I saw Name and Name1 jump. At that point the driver (Name4) pressed on the brakes. Because of the weight of the aircraft it takes time for the Goldhofer [tug] to stop. This caused the accident in colliding with the forklift. I was in the passenger's seat. As I looked back I saw when the impact occur. The driver pressed on the brakes but it takes time to stop.The accident happen because of the wands failing and the brakes on the Goldhofer.The Crew Chief notified the Operations Manager and maintenance approach the aircraft right away to inspect the engine. They were waiting to work on the aircraft. [Suggest] getting better equipment.


Second narrative: Pulling the plane to the parking spot. I was the guide man. A piece of equipment was over the line that was touched.  Maintenance placed there.  Signaled the driver to slow down; then stopped him before the equipment. I guess the weight of the plane forced the tug to keep going for a little bit. The cowling touched the lift. I was the guide man; Name4 was the driver; Name1 was the left wing walker and Name was the right wing walker. My left wing walker did use the TTWS (Tow Team Warning System) but it did not work as it was supposed to; since half of them don't work and brought the plane in so that not to block another hangar; outside spots XX and X1 and as you see in the pictures the safety lines are faded and should be 10 feet from the edge of a plane but on XX it's not and Maintenance thinks that it's a storage area to put equipment.Maintenance parked their equipment over the line that we can't move we tried to park out of the way as close as we can so that to be out of the way of other planes. When this happened the manager was notified also production control. And Maintenance came over to move their equipment. [Suggest] Not to park inside the safety envelope.


Synopsis: Technicians reported a collision with a fork lift while towing the aircraft to the hangar. They also reported the TTWS (Tow Team Warning System) did not alert the crew as expected.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbed out and got task saturated while in a turn hand flying because I needed the practice; when I realized I had reached 15;000 feet I corrected the situation but overshot the altitude. Captain pointed out the deviation and I smoothly reduced power and established a descent to assigned altitude. ATC queried and gave us a higher altitude 17;000.The cause was focusing on the procedure while hand flying.  Didn't notice the altitude until Captain called it out.I'm a little rusty from lack of flying and have little experience hand flying the plane. I was trying to acquire some more experience; but perhaps this wasn't the best time to do it. Would have been better to use more automation.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing an altitude overshoot during climbout while hand flying and attributed it to lack of flying.