elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on the approach to Runway XY. At about 5 NM from the runway and decelerating for flaps 30; the red low speed barberpole began to rise up to our current airspeed which was 170 KIAS. At the same time the low speed (A)lpha warning indicated on the MCP panel and indicated 135 KIAS. With an unknown airspeed anomaly we elected to abandon the approach and go around. During the go around after flaps were selected to up; we both noticed that the flaps stopped retracting at about 9 degrees. The flap handle was up and the leading edge flap transit amber light was on. All indicators were green on the overhead flaps panel. I [let] ATC [know the situation] and got the QRH out to run the leading edge flaps transit checklist. I notified the flight attendants of our status and the decision to divert to [an airport with a longer runway.] ATC vectored us for an approach to Runway XX. A full stop landing was made uneventfully. The airspeed indications and the barberpole low and high speed warnings indicated normally; and appeared to have been normal after about 5 minutes once we elected to go around.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported airspeed indicator malfunction on approach. A go around was executed; and flaps failed to retract. Flight diverted to a nearby airport with a longer runway.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower cleared our flight for takeoff. When Tower instructed switch to Departure; I asked First Officer to query if we are supposed to do runway heading or RNAV. Departure stated RNAV and said that was our clearance; I told them we were instructed to takeoff but not told 'Climb via RNAV first fix' as usually included in takeoff clearance. Departure said that they do not need to state that; it is assumed; and he said they haven't been having any real problems for 2 months since they stopped stating the clearance.I told him that in CVG if they don't say cleared 'Climb via RNAV first fix'; you are expected to fly runway heading.We were not out of compliance of the RNAV; began turn; and flew RNAV as depicted.ATC uses non-standardized communication procedures. [I] found out some towers have been approved by FAA to not use 'Climb via RNAV first fix'; while others are required to state it. [This] creates a lot of confusion when the controllers are using different play books.The FAA [should] require Tower controllers to use standardized communication procedures at all airports. Meaning when they issue clearances; they do it the same way every time. This way; crews don't have to play the guessing game of what they want; when they want; or how they want.It would help greatly if the company would provide a list of which airports have been exempted by FAA to use standard radio phraseology so we can be aware of potential issues (threats) when we operate out of those specific airports.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a communication breakdown with ATC due to differences in usage of stating flying runway heading or flying RNAV.   .
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Was cleared to taxi after landing Runway 24L (vacated on Z) to gate via Taxiways E; R; D. Due to various taxiway closures and lots of construction in the area and confusing location of Taxiway R's sign; mistook E13 for R. We had seen and identified the sign for R; but it's close proximity to Taxiway E13 made E13 look like it was R from our vantage point. No further action was taken from LAX Ground Control. Poorly positioned/oriented and small taxiway signs [is to blame]. Taxiway R's sign is exactly between E13 and R Taxiways. From distance; very difficult to discern which taxiway the sign pertains to.

Callback: The reporter stated that he and his First Officer had reviewed and briefed the Commercial Airport Construction Chart and discussed CAUTION note which states: CAUTION: Twy E13 can be confused for adjacent Twy R. Twy E13 south of Twy E closed to acft with wingspan over 125' (38m). Yet when they approach E-13 it appeared that the Taxiway R signage directed them to E-13. The Reporter suggest that the large scale letters E13 and R be painted on the Taxiways so that crew can more clearly associate the signage with the adjacent Taxiway. The level of effort required to safely exit the holding ramp area where E13 leads should hasten a solution to this known problem.



Synopsis: A B737 Captain taxied onto LAX Taxiway E13 when cleared onto Taxiway R; because the R sign is too near Taxiway E13's throat and makes it appear to be R.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZBAA
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We rejected our takeoff from ZBAA at 136 KIAS. Left engine overtemp gauge turned red. No tires blown. Executed rejected takeoff; engine limits; after landing and parking checklists. Remain seated PA was made but did not go out in cabin. Asked for emergency equipment but it never came. Flight attendants were an experienced crew and did an outstanding job of keeping passengers calm. I made a PA to assure the passengers that they were safe.


Second narrative: The combination of weight; runway; and weather conditions (38C air temp) required us to make a full power; packs off departure. While taxing out we discussed the fact that the heavy weight and high V1 speed would most likely lead to blown tires if we rejected. First Officer requested emergency vehicles a couple of times but the language barrier with controllers seemed to get in the way of them ever coming.


Synopsis: A B777 flight crew rejected a MATOGW takeoff from ZBAA at high speed when the left engine overtemped.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Student w/ P.P. Cert.
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed on a training flight. It was a VFR day with no issues noted on the aircraft prior to departure. After doing maneuvers we landed on runway 17 at the ZZZ airport. During takeoff on runway 17 with a simulated engine failure during takeoff before VMC; the left side of the aircraft dropped on the runway. From our perspective it appeared as a collapsed gear. The aircraft was immediately shut down and exited. Upon looking at the left-wing area it was noticed the left main gear strut had snapped in half with the wing resting on the wheel.


Second narrative: The weather was VFR. Upon pre-flight inspection; no issue with the landing gear or airplane was discovered. During start; taxi; runup; takeoff roll; and initial gear retraction on climbout; the landing gear functioned normally. Upon reaching ZZZ a landing was performed by student. Throughout the maneuver; the landing gear functioned normally. After the landing; we taxied back to the approach end of runway 17 and the landing gear continued to function normally. During initial takeoff roll a simulated engine failure was demonstrated; I retarded the throttles to idle and applied brake pressure. Immediately following; the left main strut snapped; and the airplane rolled onto its left side causing the left prop to contact the pavement. The left main gear failure occurred at approximately 1;750.


Synopsis: Flight Instructor and student flying a PA44 aircraft on training flight reported main landing gear collapse on takeoff roll.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BVU.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZLA
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was enroute to Boulder City Airport; approaching Black Point on Wilson's Ridge from Temple Bar (east to west) when I heard another Helicopter make a radio position report'...Black Point...' and I think '4;500'. I had already been looking left and right as I approached Black Point and had not seen him. Then through to pilot-side roof window I saw the other helicopter cross over directly above; what appeared less than 100 feet vertical separation. The other helicopter was coming from the south east; heading west. After the other pilot had passed over top; I made my Black Point radio call and asked if he was the only one crossing (I was worried another might be over my left shoulder). The other helicopter was unaware of my location (he hadn't seen me at all) and so I made another radio call to make it clear I was to the south of his position heading west and he continued north-west towards the Hoover Dam.Contributing factors:Both tour routes converge at the same point and altitude from different locations. I was flying a right seat [helicopter] and the other aircraft was a left seat helicopter and due to the convergence angle neither pilot could see the other.




Synopsis: A sight seeing Helicopter Pilot reported a near miss with another touring helicopter after converging over Black Point near Hoover Dam. One helicopter pilot was in the right seat while the other pilot flew left seat and neither pilot saw the other.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on our flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; ATC (Air Traffic Control) advised us of an area of weather about 100 miles in front of us. We were advised to let them know if we wanted to deviate. The weather radar was used to scan the area of concern. Once within approximately 50 miles of the weather; we decided it would be best to deviate to the right/north. ATC gave us permission to deviate as much as needed; which we turned approximately 25 degrees towards the north. We were also given a discretionary descent down to FL240; as we were still at cruise altitude and about 120 miles from ZZZ1. We identified an area of weather that was giving a very weak return; along with a large gap. We turned towards ZZZ1 to utilize the gap in weather; which kept us around 30 miles north of the main area of concern (strong radar returns). We were IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions) at this time with light turbulence; and I elected to pull the speed back to 220kias. I then noticed an IAS (Indicated Airspeed) flag followed shortly by ALT and a CAS message. It was at this point we realized we had encountered high altitude icing and unreliable airspeed. Although my side seemed to be accurate; the First Officer side airspeed indicator was reading well below normal; before dropping off completely. We notified ATC; and began our discretionary descent. The appropriate QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) procedure was followed and we descended normally into ZZZ1. Once in the clear and at lower altitudes; the first officers PFD (Primary Flight Display) began giving normal indications again. The major threat was unreliable airspeed; while in IMC; at altitude. Per the QRH procedure; the aircraft was hand flown with no auto pilot; flight director; or yaw damper. While descending to FL240 we were given a further descent to 11;000. Correct and normal indications returned before reaching 11;000; and a normal approach was flown into ZZZ1.We both felt that the sim training we recently received on this was tremendously accurate. The aircraft indications along with the pace of deterioration was exactly like the sim scenario training we had done. We already knew which QRH procedure to find and utilize; which worked well.




Synopsis: Flight Crew reported erroneous Airspeed Indicator readings due to icing.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi in tug pulling baggage cart traveling east in vehicle lane cut off aircraft. Tug was traveling at a high rate of speed and did not yield to aircraft. Captain saw tug and slammed on brakes to stop aircraft. Tug did not slow or stop; just waved and continued on merry way. Witnessed by several ramp personnel. Caused by high speed and inattention by ramp baggage cart drivers.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported slamming on the brakes after a baggage cart cut off their aircraft on taxi in at IAH airport.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
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: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Working [3 sectors] combined. Had a brief period where volume/complexity exploded. This aircraft was a ZZZ arrival from the west. We pointed out the aircraft to ZZZ1 approach to get him away from ZZZ2; where all the conflicts were. I later observed the aircraft 5-10 miles inside ZZZ3 approach airspace without a handoff.Aside from just the bump in traffic level; the frequency congestion was horrible. Center has been worse than normal during the pandemic in complying with the LOA. We are getting ZZZ4 area landers above FL300. Also; aircraft had been auto-flashing to ZZZ3 above FL240 all day because flight data (or whoever) didn't run the text file to turn off ZZZZZ Intersection the last time it was active. We had no Supervisor and nobody was answering flight data. As a result I had dis-inhibited the auto-flash to ZZZ3.I really wish we could use cross coupling where available to eliminate pilots stepping on each other.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported working 3 sectors combined during the COVID-19 pandemic and did not point out an aircraft resulting in an airspace violation.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Air Carrier XXXX and a Company Air Carrier XXXY on the frequency at same time; not advised of similar sounding call signs; but both had been on same previous frequencies since SDF and CID; their departure locations. After Air Carrier XXXX checked on and was answered; the next transmission was for Air Carrier XXXY to descend now to FL340 then cross SAYGE at FL190 at 250 KTS. Air Carrier XXXY clearly read clearance back without any audible overlapping transmissions and the data block reflected that Air Carrier XXXY began descent. I noticed Air Carrier XXXX also descending when Mode C indicated FL357 and transmitted for Air Carrier XXXX to maintain FL360. The answer was stepped on by Air Carrier XXXY questioning the clearance. A second clearance to Air Carrier XXXX was given to turn 40 degrees right and maintain FL360. Response was also stepped on; but I heard Air Carrier XXXX say descending through FL355. After third transmission to Air Carrier XXXX asking him to verify level FL360; Air Carrier XXXX responded and verified level at FL360. The descent of Air Carrier XXXX put him in close proximity to an Airbus on another frequency (R9); responded to an RA after being turned by that controller to the right as well. The similar call signs directly contributed to this extremely close situation as well as the fact that the aircraft responded at exactly the same time. Assign aircraft distinctly different call signs and allow controllers to add letters to call signs if needed for clarity. After doing this before; I was corrected as it interrupted aircraft tracking for company trackers and passenger services.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: ZDV Controller described a loss of separation event listing similar call signs as the direct cause.
Date: 201411
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Holding over SLT on the arrival into EWR because ILS to both 4R and 4L have become out of service.  Only approach is RNAV.  We are unable to do these approaches due to being unqualified.  After many attempts to contact dispatch we receive a reply asking why we are not shooting the RNAV approach.  We send an unable reply.  We then; shortly thereafter; receive another reply from dispatch stating--and I am quoting because I printed and saved the message--'per FOM you can do RNAV GPS approaches just not RNAV RNP.  So you should be good to continue.' [Signed].  At best this is massive incompetence from both the dispatcher and flight operations duty manager and at worst purposeful deception to try to get us to complete the flight.  The ILS eventually came back online and we proceeded uneventfully.




Synopsis: When both runway 4 ILS's at EWR were out of service the flight crew of a B767 debated with Dispatch about their legality to fly the published RNAV procedures.