elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBEG.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower SBEG
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared the ILKUP Departure with the KOKRU Transition. During the preflight route/FMS review; we noted the departure note 1 mandates runway heading until 2;000 FT; but the FMC is programmed for an immediate turn back to MNS. Because of this discrepancy; I briefed and flew a departure in runway heading/heading select with a manual turn after 2;000 FT to comply with the restriction (we were eventually cleared a left turn direct ILKUP). Also; there are two ground tracks depicted; one which proceeds back to MNS and one which directs a ground track of 280 degrees to intercept the 330 degree radial to ILKUP. However; the narrative does not differentiate. The departure procedure needs to be clarified to specify which ground track to fly and the FMS needs to then be programmed accordingly. In the interim; a note to flight crews should be placed on the flight plan from SBEG clarifying the procedure to follow.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he has not received clarification about the departure's track ambiguities. However; his other main concern was his aircraft's FMS directed an immediate left turn prior to the 2;000 FT constraint. He believes that immediate turn is a FMS programming error. Because the departure was manually flown he is uncertain what track the FMS would have directed the aircraft to follow had the automation remain engaged.



Synopsis: A B737 departed on the SBEG ILKUP SID; KOKRU Transition; but the 2;000 FT turn constraint was not in the FMS departure programming and additionally chart ambiguity does not specify which departure track to follow after an eastbound takeoff.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the gate prior to departure; my Captain and I thoroughly briefed the Departure. There was some discussion on headings to fly and I called and got verification from clearance delivery. The Captain and I again reviewed the departure procedure and discussed altitudes and air speeds to be flown. We ran our checklists and pushed and began our taxi. I switched to Tower frequency and we were cleared for takeoff. This was odd because we were still quite some distance from the end of the runway.We ran the Before Takeoff Checklist and took the runway for departure. At 400 FT; I hit Heading Select and began turning the Heading bug. We cleaned up on schedule and we both noticed we were not getting good heading commands. We kept the turn coming and it just didn't seem right. At that point I noticed we were accelerating rapidly. The Captain engaged Level Change to open the speed window at which time we lost our flight directors. It was then that I realized that we never turned them on. We had inadvertently entered TO/GA. We had flight directors for vertical but not lateral guidance. Upon selecting a vertical mode we exited TO/GA and I recycled the flight directors both on. We slowed down; leveled off and continued the flight without further incidence.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported they lost their flight directors; then they realized that they never turned them on.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Escape Slide
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned an A-Check; the interior [cabin] portion; I had signed my portion off. An FAA Inspector asked me to bring the A-Check paperwork with me. We stopped at the forward [entry] door and he asked if I inspected the forward entry door slide; as per the A-Check Card; [Item] 18 of 41; I said yes. He told me to show him; what I inspected: the [slide] pressure gauge flipped it over to the back-side; checked [slide] routing and expiration date.We proceeded to the aft service door. Again I showed him [slide] pressure gauge in green [band]; flipped [girt bar flap] over; checked expiration of slide routing; it all appeared normal. I stowed the girt bar back on the hook. That is when the [FAA] Inspector asked me to read verbatim; Paragraph 3a. At that point; he pointed out that I did not engage the girt bar and the Velcro on the right side [of the flap] were not properly fastened. I corrected my mistake and made a logbook entry; stating that the Velcro was not properly installed and made a balancing [corrective action] entry: Resecured flap Velcro tab properly; per Maintenance Manual (M/M) on aft galley service door slide. I apologized for my mistake in not attaching girt bar [in floor locks] arming it; and somehow missed not seeing that the Velcro was not attached properly.  I need to pay attention more and ask questions if I do not understand [paperwork] and pay close attention to when revisions are added [to procedures]. There was a revision added on this section [of the A-Check Card]; I'm not sure when; but it was revised January 2012.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports an FAA Inspector pointed out maintenance step procedures that he had failed to accomplish during a Cabin Interior A-Check on an MD-82 aircraft.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was practicing instrument approaches for a training flight. Upon starting the missed approach climbout there was a surge in the electricity shown through flickering lights; Low Bus annunciator indications; both alternators shown as inoperative; and a right ALT circuit breaker popped. We (my students and I) started turning off unnecessary equipment since we were running on our battery only; and on the way back toward the airport we started to smell something burning. The smell increased rapidly over the next 1-2 minutes and then the student observing in the back started to see smoke coming from the cockpit area. We immediately notified ATC at this point and told them we were going to land at the closest airport.




Synopsis: A PA-44-180 electrical system surged during a practice instrument approach go around resulting the loss of both generators and smoke in the cockpit so the flight landed at the nearest airport.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATIS reported to expect the visual to Runway 16. A visual approach was loaded and briefed including obstacle clearances and a pattern altitude of 3;700 FT 5-8 NM prior to SUG; ATC cleared us direct KEANS [direct] AVL. This would place us 5 NM from the runway with a 145 degree turn to final. We were cleared from 10;000 FT MSL to 6;000 FT MSL. Between 10-15 NM from the airport; ATC requested if we had the field in sight in which we acknowledged. We were cleared for a visual approach. We selected heading mode to give us a downwind; base and final. The downwind to base would take us in proximity to a 2;645 FT depicted tower. Other obstacles were considered outside our vertical and lateral paths. We were in terrain mode. We selected 3;700 FT and began a descent from 6;000 FT. Between 4;000 FT-4;300 FT we received a GPWS 'Terrain; Terrain; Pull-Up'. This was in day visual conditions with terrain and obstacle clearly in sight. We took positive corrective action until the GPWS warning/alert stopped and terrain clearance was assured. We advised ATC after we had landed. Although terrain clearance was visually assured; the mountainous terrain caused the GPWS to activate. The descent rate was less than 1;500 FPM trending to 1;000 FPM.


Second narrative: The Captain stated that being that it was day visual conditions this would be acceptable; but in no way would we do a visual if it were night due to the terrain.Recommend vectors onto the LOC runway 16 or full procedure because a visual to 16 requires the mountain range to the east to be flown over at an altitude or rate that may cause a GPWS warning/alert.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS 'Terrain' warning on visual approach to AVL Runway 16.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was westbound on the downwind assigned 5000 feet. Aircraft Y was released off of FFZ assigned 3000 feet and 180 heading. After I radar identified Aircraft Y there were numerous VFR aircraft in the vicinity appearing likely to converge with him. I climbed Aircraft Y to 4000 feet. There were still numerous aircraft in their vicinity. I turned Aircraft X to the north heading 350 and as soon as Aircraft X was abeam Aircraft Y I climbed Aircraft Y to 5000 feet to avoid the several VFR aircraft they were conflicting with. I felt this was the safe way even though there may not have been 3 miles lateral separation with Aircraft X.The only fix would be to lower the Class Bravo airspace.




Synopsis: P50 TRACON Controller reported climbing an aircraft through the altitude of another aircraft with less than the required three lateral miles lateral separation to avoid numerous VFR aircraft.
Date: 202005
Location: 15MO.Airport, MO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G 15MO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: There are a series of poorly lit; (some unlit) windmills directly to the east of the private airstrip 15MO. They are currently not marked on VFR sectionals. This creates a potential conflict to aircraft descending into the traffic pattern from the east. This is a much frequented private airfield; and I believe the lack of lighting on these towers could create a fatal accident; especially at night.


Second narrative: Series of poorly lit and/or unlit towers directly to the east of 15MO (a private airfield) that could create a conflict to any aircraft descending into the airfield traffic pattern from the east.


Synopsis: Pilots reported a series of poorly lighted and unlighted windmills nearby 15MO; a private airfield; that are not marked on VFR sectional chart. Pilots believe the lack of lighting causes a hazard to arriving traffic; especially at night.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at 14;000 MSL on a vector to rejoin our routing. We were being held down for traffic. When that traffic passed overhead we were cleared to climb to FL190 and switched to Washington Center. The Captain dialed in what I thought was 190 on the MCP and then dialed in the frequency on the radio because his hand was closest. I do not remember repeating '190' when he removed his hand from the MCP; but it is a procedure and habit I do regularly.There was a lot of chatter on the frequency so I waited to check in on the frequency until it quieted down. I leaned forward to check the out and off times from the FMC. At that time; we were approaching FL180; so we set 29.92 in the altimeters. I wrote down the times. Then; Center called us to see if we were on frequency yet. I responded that we were 'passing 190 for 290' as I looked at the altitude window on the MCP. Center responded that we were only cleared to 190; but it was 'no big deal' because there were no other aircraft above us. Then; he cleared us to climb to FL260. When Center called us; we were passing 19.2.


Second narrative: When finally given a climb and normal speed; I thought the Controller said FL290 versus FL190. It seemed odd to get that much climb from Washington Center all at once; but my pilot not flying seemed to accept it...Although not a particularly difficult day; I think both the First Officer and I let down our guard at the same time. He missed my mistake and I did not pursue verification on a clearance that seemed a little out of place.If something does not seem right--even by a little bit--pursue verification from the other crew member and then ATC. An old lesson relearned.


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew failed to follow SOP to verify confirmation of a clearance to a higher altitude. As they passed through FL190 for 290 ATC advised they had only been cleared to 190. They were then cleared to climb to FL270.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CAK.TRACON, OH
Weather elements / visibility: Clear-Ceiling not factor; 15
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C CAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON CAK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying at approximately 5;500 feet at about 80 knots airspeed. I was using VFR Flight Following; was in contact with Akron-Canton (CAK) approach control on 125.50 MHz; and was squawking an assigned transponder code.I passed an object that appeared to be an Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV). The UAV was generally spherical in shape and about six to twelve inches in diameter. The UAV also appeared to have protrusions or extensions; that could have been rotors and rotor mounts. The UAV was generally black; with other color(s). The UAV passed less than two hundred feet to my right; and less than fifty feet below. It passed generally parallel to my track of flight. The UAV may have been traveling in the same or opposite direction as my track of flight; or it may have been nearly stationary. I did not perceive any relative lateral motion. The total time of observation was less than two seconds.Within ten seconds I keyed my microphone; and said 'Akron Approach; light experimental [tail number];' or nearly identical words to the same effect. There was some delay in establishing communication with the controller who initially repeated my assigned transponder code. I advised the Controller that I was already using VFR flight following. When the Controller asked the purpose of my transmission; I stated I wished to report being nearly struck by a drone. Subsequently; a Controller asked that I telephone [number removed]. I agreed and the rest of the flight proceeded without further incident. After parking the aircraft; I made a few notes; called the number; and made an (audio recorded) report with CAK Approach Control.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported an NMAC with a UAV.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIF.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BIF
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival at Ft. Bliss Biggs Army Airfield; Runway 21 was NOTAMed for men and equipment on the runway and a displaced threshold which closes the first 4;000 FT or so of Runway 21. We were cleared to fly the VOR 21 approach to Runway 21 without any mention from Approach Control or Tower of men and equipment on the runway and any mention of the displaced threshold. I believe there is a requirement that Tower should mention these hazards to arriving aircraft. After talking to Tower via the land line they implied that this is not a requirement. The approaches to the runway bring you to the normal touchdown point which is dangerous not only to the men working; but a part of the runway has been excavated around the normal touchdown zone; so if an aircraft mistakenly landed there it would destroy the airplane. Please pass along to all crews. Normally this NOTAM would also be available through ATIS; but BIF uses El Paso regional airport ATIS for arriving traffic which makes no mention of BIF airfield NOTAMs. Approach Control should not have cleared us for an Instrument approach if a runway has a displaced threshold. Tower should mention to every landing aircraft that men and equipment are on the runway and that there is a displaced threshold. Add BIF NOTAMs to El Paso airport ATIS.




Synopsis: Flight crew landed on BIF Runway 21 and unexpectedly discovered men and equipment near the displaced threshold. The BIF NOTAMs are published through the normal FAA channel; but apparently this crew did not get them.