elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MYNN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were number 1 for departure holding short runway 14 MYNN. The tower asked us if we could see the traffic [Aircraft X] 1.5 miles away. We said that we saw the traffic; however; the traffic was not lined up with runway 14 at that point and aircraft were landing on 2 runways at that time: runway 14 and runway 9. The tower controller said to 'Line up and wait runway 14'. We read back 'line up and wait runway 14'. I started to roll towards the runway and then saw that the traffic [Aircraft Y] had turned toward our runway (14) for landing and was pretty close in. I stopped the aircraft before rolling out onto the actual runway but passed the hold short line. The tower told [Aircraft Y] to execute a go around maneuver well above the elevation of the runway. The tower controller came back to us on the radio and said 'You were supposed to line up and wait behind the landing traffic.' Neither of us in the cockpit heard the word 'behind' on her initial lineup and wait call to us and we read back the clearance as we heard and understood it - 'line up and wait runway 14' with no read back of the word 'behind'. After [Aircraft X] executed the go around the tower controller then gave us clearance to take off from runway 14 with no further anomalies or incidences.




Synopsis: Captain reported a miscommunication with MYNN Tower led to a traffic conflict with a landing aircraft as he taxied toward Runway 14.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed on Runway 4; rolled to end was told exit R started to turn on what I thought was R; but needed go little farther. Tried to turn back; [but] pier end was not swept. Tiller and nose wheel started to slide. ATC instructed [us to] go forward to R. Requested full right turn back around to intercept Taxiway R. ATC then instructed [us] to taxi R; cross 13; then to ramp uneventfully.Pay a little more attention for correct taxiway at night; watch for non-swept areas near pier end. Do not get rushed by ATC to clear Runway in non-normal weather conditions.


Second narrative: On LGA Runway 4 landing rollout assigned to clear at taxiway U. Captain was unable to make Taxiway U and continued on to Taxiway R due to nose wheel slipping on wet/icy surface. ATC instructed to clear the runway immediately due to landing traffic. Captain turned just prior to R. Lighting and signage was difficult to see due to poor illumination. Taxi lines were especially difficult to see due to poor lighting and reflections on the wet surface. The aircraft ended up on an unswept portion of the ramp prior to Taxiway R. We coordinated with Tower to make a right turn back on to the runway and clear at R. Remaining taxi to parking was uneventful.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported difficulty complying with ATC taxi clearance because of slippery conditions and poor lighting.
Date: 201310
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am in the EFB test program using the iPad instead of paper charts. When I selected a chart that expired that day; I got a red flag; warning me the chart had expired. Since we were after midnight Zulu; I thought I needed to use the next chart. I convinced my First Officer we should also changeover the FMC database. We had been cleared through PDC via ACARS to fly the COAST 5 Departure; but we failed to notice the numbering difference and loaded and briefed the COAST 6. Because both the charts and FMC were changed; we did not detect any errors during the route briefing. The COAST 6 Departure is significantly different from the COAST 5; so when we flew the COAST 6 with LNAV; we deviated from the COAST 5 routing. Center asked us about our routing and reassigned us the specific route points to fly.We made two errors: 1) we used charts and the FMC database too early (the changeover time is 0900Z; not 0000Z; as specified in the AOM); and 2) we failed to detect the numbering change of the assigned SID (COAST 5 versus COAST 6). Prevention: 1) All 'effective' and 'expired' dates should include the 0900Z time on both paper and electronic charts. 2) EFB training should include a lesson on the red flag warnings; and remind students of the 0900Z standard changeover time. 3) Crews must brief the name and NUMBER of the cleared departure or approach procedure.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports changing to new charts in his EFB before the official change over time (0900Z); then changing the FMC database to match. A track deviation occurs when the Coast 6 departure is flown instead of the cleared Coast 5.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was conducting a cross country for time building towards my Commercial certificate. Flying in a Cessna 150. When I was on final approach landing; my engine failed and I was forced to do a power off approach. I landed about 250 ft short of runway; in the grass. I suffered no injury.




Synopsis: C150 pilot reported landing short of a runway due to engine failure.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft overrun runway because of unable to lift off at V1/Vr. Possible cause flight control malfunction and or incorrect cargo weight and cargo misloading.During takeoff roll the First Officer was unable to rotate the aircraft to establish a climb attitude. I immediately started an abort procedure resulting in runway overrun. After completing the evacuation checklist and the arrival of the rescue vehicle we proceeded to exit the aircraft and immediately noticed a problem with the elevator control tabs. Also during the post flight assessment of the possible cause of the incident we noticed a possible misloading configuration.My perceptions of the cause of this incident is inadequate training and rush to finish OE with very minimal exposure to what to expect during the operation in the cargo division. Responsibility that is put on the Captain based on existing procedure works fine with passengers but is not the same in the cargo division. Example: The lack of support of company infrastructure in the cargo division is in my opinion the main cause of this incident and future incidents. The Captain is an island in the midst of an ocean full of sharks.

Callback: Reporter states that the cargo weights were not correct producing an overweight and out of CG situation.  In this case; the personnel at a foreign airport had to be trusted to accurately weigh and load the aircraft and they did not.



Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a rejected takeoff at a high altitude airport after the First Officer is unable to rotate at Vr.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B BFI
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Jet Blast
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y had taxied into parking via Taxiway A and was pulling into his parking spot on the ramp. Aircraft X was doing a touch and go on Runway 14L which is directly west of the ramp. During the touch and go Aircraft X was directly behind the Aircraft Y and was hit with jet blast on his left wing from Aircraft Y while they were still under power; idle or taxi power unknown.This happens here often enough and some of us to issue cautionary jet blast calls to Runway 14L traffic. I do not know if the pilot was told or not.We could put a message on the ATIS; create another Hot Spot or at least post it in the Airport Directory.




Synopsis: Local Controller reported that a small aircraft was hit with jet blast while on the runway at BFI airport. Controller stated that this happens frequently and suggested adding a message on the ATIS.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise altitude (above 30;000) overhead panel door light illuminated with EICAS L AFT ENT DOOR msg. Called FA (Flight Attendant) to check door. Received report that the door handle popped up a few inches. When handle was pushed down; cockpit indications went out. When handle was released indications returned shortly afterwards. After several intermittent on/off cycles; asked FA if handle could be secured down. FA and deadheading pilot came up with a solution and informed cockpit. No further nuisance indications. FA informed cockpit that several seatbelt extensions and tuff ties were used to secure door. CA (Captain) directed that straps and ties be removed when preparing for landing to allow emergency use of door if required. Uneventful landing made. 757 QRH states that if pressurization is normal (it was) then the door is in a safe configuration and to continue normal flight.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported an aft cabin door handle popped up during flight.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was conducted with Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) bleed inoperative. I chose not to use the APU at all. Upon arriving at gate I shut down #1 engine and waited to shut the other down until ground power was connected. The doors were disarmed and out of habit I shut off the beacon. It was off for about 10-20 seconds before I turned it back on realizing it needed to be on. After the aircraft was deplaned a employee; came up to the aircraft from the ramp and told me that a ground crew personnel approached the #2 Engine while it was running to put a cone in front of it and was 'almost sucked in'. I called the on duty chief pilot to report the incident.




Synopsis: Embraer Captain reported not following proper parking procedure for shutting down the engines which placed ramp employees in a hazardous situation.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being vectored for approach; we received a TCAS RA directing us to climb after having received a TCAS TA. We immediately climbed by approximately 700 ft until the TCAS system stopped giving us a climb command. We notified approach of the TCAS RA and that we were in a climb. Once the command ended; we returned to our previously assigned altitude and advised Approach. We didn't see the TCAS intruder until we began our climb; it appeared to be a single engine aircraft at a VFR altitude of approximately 4;500 ft. We had been assigned a vectoring altitude of 5;000 ft. After we returned to our previously assigned altitude; the rest of the flight was uneventful.


Second narrative: Single engine; westbound GA aircraft was 400 ft lower than us and caused the TCAS RA alert. I turned off the autopilot and climbed 700 ft as per the RA.The system worked well in detecting a possible conflict; issuing the RA and then announcing clear of conflict.


Synopsis: DHC-8 flight crew reported a TCAS RA for unreported traffic while on approach.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The pilot of Air Carrier X broadcasted he was descending to FL290 because he 'heard a loud noise' and wanted to divert. At the time of broadcast I had just assumed the ZZZ airspace; and was in the process of syncing the combined sector frequencies and also evaluating a potential traffic situation. Because I was momentarily distracted I had to confirm what I thought I heard with the pilot of Air Carrier X. After confirmation; I immediately sent a Data Block to the next sector and called to coordinate. As I was coordinating; I was attempting to 'quick look' the next sector to assess any traffic situations. However; the sector was combined unbeknownst to me. I was frantically 'quick looking' every sector number I could think of at the time. I finally discovered the right sector. The pilot informed me he had to descend. I issued the traffic; opposite direction at FL320.' With the insistence of the pilot needing to descend; I then instructed Air Carrier X to descend rapidly through FL310 and maintain FL240. The pilot of Air Carrier X was able to maintain FL330 and then descended the aircraft to FL240 upon passing the FL320 traffic. I then asked Air Carrier X how he wanted to proceed; the pilot responded via RADAR vectors. I issued present heading and gave a frequency change. Although I have had numerous emergency scenarios in which the pilot is in need of an imminent descent; I have never been faced with one in such close proximity to conflicting traffic. What complicated this scenario is I had no communication with the conflicting aircraft (FL320); and poor communication with the Controller that had communication ability with the conflicting traffic.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an emergency descent event; coordinating separation efforts with adjacent sectors. The reporter never before experienced an emergency descent resulting in potential conflicts with several aircraft.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew into this airport 4 days previously; noted that I had about 1 hour of fuel remaining; i.e.; a quarter of a tank. On morning of incident; went to airport to fly 20 miles south for fuel. Due to fuel tank being 'low' -- no fuel will show up on inspection when less than a quarter. The tank gauges showed enough fuel; the previous trip should have allowed enough fuel. On takeoff; all was normal till 5 minutes after takeoff when engine quit. [I] switched to other tank; turned back to airport. Engine restarted and ran north 1 minute and quit. Attempted to return to the airport; but unable. Elected to land alongside highway; and I descended; realized there was no traffic or telephone wires. I swerved to land on highway which was done. Pushed plane off highway down an embankment and tail pushed up against wire fence. Not sure at this point why engine quit; but know I should have added enough gas to be sure there was no possibility. Not sure why my previous experience led me to believe there was enough gas; but hindsight tells me why I would have not been more sure when I took off. When a fuel tank shows no visible fuel; put fuel in regardless of what previous experience tells one how much should still be in the tank or what fuel gauge shows versus what is previously shown. No gas visible means no gas and not 4 gallons that I think is still there. Off airport landing; fuel exhaustion? No damage.




Synopsis: An RV-6 pilot landed off airport because of fuel starvation after taking off with no fuel quantity indicated because previous experience told him he should have enough fuel to fly to a nearby airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RDU
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a right downwind to Runway 5L we were given the clearance for the visual approach. As we proceeded on the downwind leg ATC inquired if we were going to turn base leg and upon the inquiry we started to turn in for the base leg. We then received an Obstacle Warning Alert from the GPWS (large tower) and a low level alert from ATC. We promptly arrested the descent and climbed in accordance with the GPWS guidance. Once clear of the obstacle we continued the approach without further incident. This could have been prevented with a better brief of the highest obstacle on the approach chart; better outside scanning and better situational awareness on the visual approach.


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


Synopsis: On the right downwind segment of a visual approach to RDU Runway 5L; crew commenced base-leg turn in response to an ATC inquiry. In the turn the crew received a GPWS obstacle warning and a low-altitude alert from ATC simultaneously. Crew followed the EGPWS guidance and returned to a normal approach and landing.