elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As a result of a shift change this flight was on my coworkers desk; but I got the call at my desk. The ramp lead call requesting help finalizing his DSTG (Departure Staging Guide). There were two issues preventing him from finalizing first there was an additional Hazmat quickpak added to the flight that was loaded up front. After verifying the item was on board I helped him pit the item; then I noticed the aft compartment the ramp lead had planned dry ice freight with mail and no bags. I then asked the ramp lead if the freight showing in pit 4 was actually loaded he said yes and that it was secured with the mail. I told him he would not be able to final without the required 15 bags. He was showing 15 bags in pit 1 so I then advised him to move the 15 bags from pit 1 to pit 4. I also sent the Captain a ACARS because the flight was showing brake released.




Synopsis: Ground Personnel reported assisting Ramp Lead in correcting Departure Staging Guide (DSTG) Hazmat cargo loading errors in order to legally dispatch flight.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EISN.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center EISN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During flight planning the flight plan indicated the flight would depart on time; but arrive 1:11 late.  We assumed it was due to an unusually long NAT track and unfavorable winds.  The flight plan called for a cost index of 149.  After loading and verifying the flight plan in the FMS; we compared the FMC distance to that of the flight plan; and they matched.  I had the 3rd break.  I was called back to the cockpit an hour early and told that we were arriving on time; and with 10;000 lbs more fuel than expected.  While on break; the flight had been cleared direct to a point ahead; which reduced the flight time by nearly 1 hour.  We landed on time.  The next morning I studied the flight plan to try and figure out what happened.  That's when I noticed two points that took us nearly 90 degrees off course for 350 miles; then 180 turn back to a normal course.  The route went Bexet; Lasno; Emper; Unlid.  I assume the controller must have noticed the unusual route and when the flight was cleared direct to Unlid; about an hour was knocked off the flight time; along with 10;000lbs of fuel savings.




Synopsis: During pre-flight a B767 crew notice an unusually high flight time for their North Atlantic crossing.  Later on during coast in ATC reclears the flight on a route reducing flight time by approximately 1 hour.  Reporter later researches the longer planned flight and finds the original route was filed incorrectly with a zig zag type pattern to the south and west of Ireland.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The First Officer and I had our pairing modified on day 4. After a night of reduced rest due to bad weather we flew and the following morning from to ZZZ. Upon arriving at ZZZ the printer showed that we had been reassigned. We were instructed to proceed to a new gate and we would no longer be flying our turn in an hour and thirty minutes but now were to report immediately to fly ZZZ to ZZZZ and back to ZZZ. After arriving at the gate we learned that this flight was delayed by the ZZZZ Airport because they had an inoperative Fire Truck. The original crew was going to time out so we were put in their place. I called the dispatcher on the paperwork and asked what was going on. I was told that they should have heard back from ZZZZ by now but as of yet nothing. I felt this was unsatisfactory and said I needed someone to call and find out what the hell was going on. After a brief period I received a call back from the dispatcher and he advised me that ZZZZ said they would provide an update Four (4) hours for an update is not satisfactory with the resources available to this airline. To allow people to just sit in the gate area where they still were; why board a plane that probably isn't going for hours if it goes at all is not acceptable. This bothered me if not only for the passengers but for the flight attendants; the FO; and me. Short night and now an exceptionally long day that I'm not certain we would even be legal for is courting disaster. We agreed that calling scheduling and indicating that we would not be able to complete the reassignment because of fatigue was the best move in the interest of safety. In nearly 20 years as a pilot with this airline I have never been late for a show or called in fatigued but I felt like in this situation it was the safety minded thing to do.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported being unable to depart prior to fatigue setting in due to an equipment problem at the destination airport.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: PFD
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to ZZZZZ intersection ATC cleared us down to 4;000 (from 5;000) and slow to approach speed. We were currently at flaps 5 and 210 kts. I planned to use SPD INTV to slow down and LVL CHG to descend the aircraft. The IAS/MACH window did not open when I selected SPD INTV. I believe I also tried selecting LVL CHG and/or V/S mode to open the IAS/MACH window. When nothing worked I disconnected the autopilot and auto throttles and started a manual descent. The IAS/MACH windows opened shortly after with 210 KTS in the window. Captain set Vref+5 using IAS/MACH selector. PFD1 bug moved to Vref+5 while PFD 2 was stuck at 210KT. We configured the aircraft using airspeed from PFD1. Once we were configured the Captain transferred his PDF display to my side (control panel; both on 1). I was now flying the speed set in the IAS/MACH window; Vref+5. On short final Captain stated '5 kts slow' as per his HUD. PFD was showing Vref+5; same as set in the IAS/MACH window. I immediately increased speed 5kts to maintained Vref+10 on my PFD. We landed with no further issues.




Synopsis: First Officer reported PFD failure on approach resulting in a non functional airspeed indication on the First Officer's Primary Flight Display.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel; Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi out to Runway XXR at ZZZ; we sent a late weights ACARS message and also contacted Operations; and was told there would be a delay getting final weights. We were taken out of the takeoff queue and advised to tell Tower when we were finally ready. A few minutes later we received the final weights ACARS message; and the performance update. That message showed a zero fuel weight of 188;384 lbs. Loaded weights and obtained and loaded new takeoff data per SOP. Advised Tower we were ready and takeoff and climb to cruise uneventful.In cruise; another final weights message was pushed to the printer indicating a zero fuel weight of 185;502 lbs.; a decrease of about 2;800 lbs. from what we had received prior to takeoff. Sent a query to Dispatch about this and he responded he had just heard from load planning that they had trouble with their scanners and some items were not actually loaded on the flight.We entered the correct zero fuel weight into the FMC; and continued routine SOP to ZZZ1. It was good the weight error did not go the other way.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported that a communication breakdown with Dispatch caused the aircraft to depart with incorrect weights.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other on take off
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff; received master warning indicating a pitch trim inop just prior to 80 knots. Rejected takeoff; taxied off the runway; worked with maintenance to fix the issue; continued the flight with no more issues. Always be ready for warnings during takeoff.




Synopsis: Embraer Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to a master warning for pitch trim failure.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ZHU ARTCC gave us new routing prior to takeoff (at the hold short line of the runway.) We inputted the new data into the FMS and it checked out. During climb; we discussed why ATC wanted us to join an arrival all the way over New Orleans; since we were to the West of Houston. We discussed whether to divert. I made the suggestion that we should just tell ATC that the reroute is not good due to fuel; and see if we can get a route similar to our planned route.  After getting clearance to do a new route; which was originally our planned route; ATC then started vectoring the rest of the air traffic on 'our' route. Interestingly; if we did divert for fuel; and then ended up doing the planned route; we would have to have gone in a hold due to being over-weight. The main threat and error was due to not realizing; until after takeoff; that due to only taking enough fuel for the planned trip; we could not safely do the re-route. The FMS calculated that by flying past IAH to New Orleans; and then back to IAH; we would land with 800 LBS of fuel.I suggest Dispatch plan for the aircraft to carry more fuel; or Houston ARTCC getting more familiar with the new Arrivals and Departures which seem to be still causing traffic flow/confusion for the airspace.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 approach IAH from the West was told to fly an arrival which began near MSY for weather; but because of fuel the crew would have had to divert. ATC did modify the route preventing the divert.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
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; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were expecting to land runway 35R at DEN.  We had already set up and briefed the ILS 35R CAT III.  While descending through FL180 we were told to expect ILS 35L.  We then set up and briefed the ILS 35L CAT III. We were on the BOSSS2 RNAV arrival which transitions into the approach. As we passed BOSSS we received an FMC alert saying the approach and frequency does not match. The airplane started turning right and descending for ILS 35R instead of staying at 12;000 feet like it should have for 35L. We immediately selected altitude hold and heading select and turned back on course. We told Denver Approach what had happened and asked if we needed to climb back up to 12;000 feet. He said it was no problem and told us to descend and maintain 10;000 feet.While re-briefing the approach we did not catch that the FMS still had the previous approach loaded. A contributing factor was that we are still trying to get familiar with our new checklists and flows. This runway change happened last minute while we were performing our descent checklist and before landing checklist. Denver field elevation is 5;434 feet; so our before landing checklist that begins at 10;000 AFL came quickly after passing FL180.When briefing an approach; always make sure the FMS is loaded with the correct approach.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on the BOSSS2 RNAV arrival into DEN when the FMC was improperly programmed following a late runway change.
Date: 201502
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This is an everyday occurrence involving the B777. I am concerned for the safety of our passengers and inflight crews traveling and working on the B777s. This airplane has overhead bins that are over 6 feet high. When bags are placed in the bins the flight attendants have to close these bins before the doors can be closed. The weight and height of the bins cause injuries and long term back and shoulder problems. These bins often come open during the takeoff and landing of the flight due to the difficulty with the closing of the bins. I was hurt in 2009 and wrote to [my airline]; AFA; OSHA and the FAA. I would like to have this problem addressed to prevent injuries. [My airline] wants to prevent injuries but will not address this serious problem. It is not in my job description to be able to lift 75-150 lbs over my head into a 6 foot high ceiling. I am 5 ft. 2 inches and when I was hired you could not be 6 feet tall with or without high heel shoes. Most of the flight attendants that I fly with have this height and are not able to lift these weights. [My airline] will have to offer reasonable accommodations or anyone under 5 feet 5 inches will be disabled from performing this task. This design prohibits us from being the safety professionals that our Company and our Unions expect us to be. I have reviewed the Americans with Disabilities Act under Title 1.




Synopsis: B777 flight attendant expressed concern about the possibility of injury to flight attendants when placing bags in the overhead bins that require a long reach.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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: Descending into ZZZ; I was keeping my speed below 250 knots while descending through 10;000 feet using speedbrakes (power at idle). As I was reaching my level off altitude in the descent; I retracted the speedbrakes and the aircraft speed increased to around 258 knots. Upon seeing this excess speed; I re-extended the speedbrakes and slowed the aircraft to below 250 knots. Cause - Not noticing the increasing airspeed was a rusty move on my part; I believe; due to lack of flying over the past few months. To prevent this from occurring again; I'll be more focused on the task at hand when changing configurations.




Synopsis: Corporate Jet Captain reported exceeding the 250 knot speed restriction below 10;000 feet and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CKB.Airport, WV
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Winglet
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: During preflight it was noticed that left wing had nine static wicks instead of seven. Or a total of 29 instead of 27.Aircraft was brought in to get a new winglet installed. After new winglet was installed the manufacturer installed nine static wicks because that is how the majority of CRJ 700's are configured. I made numerous phone calls to MOD of MOC; and it was decided that the flight could depart under part 91 flight rules.I have since secured phone numbers to reach personnel from flight department in the event of after hours issues.


Second narrative: The aircraft was at the CKB facility for repair to the Left Hand (LH) winglet. The damage was significant and required many hours of structural work which was all documented and approved (ref. ERS-CR-5700-530 & KCC670-15000 Kit Dwg). After the repairs; while final preparations and sign-offs were being made supervisor called me at MOC. He wanted to let me know the LH winglet had 2 extra static wicks installed on it. We discussed it and I determined this new configuration must be approved since it just finished repair at the facility. I didn't know all the details of how the repair was accomplished but; I did hear from coworkers that it was extensive to include parts availability was a major obstacle. I suggested to him that we let the aircraft depart.A few moments later I received a call from our maintenance Pilot. He also was concerned with extra static wicks installed on the LH winglet. I explained to him I already was aware of the issue and as far as I knew the aircraft was legal to fly. He agreed and accepted the aircraft.


Synopsis: The Captain of a regional jet reported that 2 extra static wicks were installed on a recently replaced winglet. After consulting with maintenance personnel it was determined that the aircraft was airworthy and was dispatched under a Part 91 ferry permit.