elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We arrived in ZZZ at XA:00 local time. The aircraft was to remain overnight and we were asked to leave the APU up and packs on due to cold overnight temperatures. This method was used by the ground personnel in lieu of a ground heat cart since one was not available. We left the APU running as requested and left the airport. Upon returning to the airplane the next day we found the left wing tank which the APU was being feed from only containing 200 pounds of fuel. This is a concern as there is no one on the aircraft overnight to monitor the fuel low pressure lights. If there was a delay or other situation this aircraft would have run the left tank dry causing the APU to shut down. Most importantly there would be an unmonitored low pressure fuel low pressure light. The other concern for this configuration was the outflow valve was closed manually with the APU and packs on. I understand this configuration with an external air cart on the aircraft; but not certain it is appropriate for the APU configuration. If the main cabin door were to be closed this would pressurize the aircraft completely making it impossible to access unless the fire handle is pulled in the wheel well to shut down the APU.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported ground personnel requested APU on overnight; but failed to monitor low fuel pressure.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to extremely high workloads on [Continent] desks on [Date]; I did not have the opportunity to look at METAR/ATIS information. If the crew did not have pertinent weather information; the crew would have sent me a message or called. These 3 flights that were under my supervision; were released by one of the 4 desks I took over at XA:00. The following flights affected Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1; Aircraft Y ZZZ-ZZZ2; and Aircraft Z ZZZ-ZZZ2.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported not following procedures due to time constraints and staffing issues.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GRR.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Tower GRR
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Enroute to GRR we were notified by CLE Center and GRR Approach that there was glider activity ahead. We were about about 15 miles east of GRR at 5;000 FT below a 5;500 FT overcast when we spotted the first glider in a turn at our altitude approximately 3 miles ahead. We notified Approach Control of the traffic and it was quickly apparent that he did not hold this particular glider. The glider was white and could not be seen against the overcast unless it was in a turn. Approaching about 1 mile I turned 30 degrees left of course to remain clear of the traffic. Leveling the wings out of the turn we passed over a second glider and under a third clearing each by about 500 FT and 1/4 mile. Several additional gliders were visible on TCAS; but the 3 we avoided were not. Clear of the traffic I turned back on course and continued the vectors into GRR. We received advance warning from ATC that we were approaching glider activity and were assisted in avoiding the gliders that were using transponders but we were not aware that some gliders did not have transponders. The vectors we received did not clear us of the entire area where the gliders were active and allowed us to come way too close before visual contact.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports conflict with sailplanes 15 miles east of GRR at 5;000 FT. Some of the sailplanes were pointed out by ATC and detected on TCAS; but others were apparently not transponder equipped.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were delayed yesterday because of ATC issues. By the time we took off it was dark and we had been up for 12 hours. As we flew east off the coast of State X we encountered moderate turbulence and precipitation. The Captain got distracted and as we leveled off at 7;000 feet his speed began to increase. I called out 'Speed' and he did not acknowledge so again I said 'Watch your speed.' By this time we were doing around 275 knots and I don't why but he thought we should continue the climb so he used the autopilot to begin to climb the plane. I immediately told him to maintain 7;000 and reduce his speed. The initiated climb resulted in an altitude gain of 400 feet and the Controller told us to maintain 7;000 feet. We returned to 7;000 with no other issues and slowed. I was told our delay was a result of staffing issues at ZZZ center because of COVID-19. This is by far the longest ATC delay I have experienced and I definitely know fatigue was a factor hear. Do I think we were unsafe? No; I do not. That being said I don't think we were the tip of the spear that late in the day. ATC was super busy on the radios and we tried calling several times to request higher to get out of the weather we were in to no avail. Under staffing; busy airspace; delays; fatigue; and weather all combined would be the problem in my opinion. As well as pressure to get the job done.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a speed and altitude deviation during departure and cited fatigue from a lengthy ATC COVID-19 related delay as contributing factor.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
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 E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Crossed ARCHI at 7000 feet vs 8000 feet contradicting NOTAM FDC 5/0051 which the Captain and I did not properly review on the ground prior to pushback. I as the FO need to be better about thoroughly reviewing the NOTAMS and not relying on the Captain to 'always doing so' without fail.


Second narrative: Did not maintain 8000 feet that was in the NOTAM when passing ARCHI. Put it on the weather packet.


Synopsis: Flight crew missed the mandatory crossing altitude NOTAM change from 7;000 to 8;000 feet at an initial approach fix (ARCHI) for the RNAV (GPS) Runway 28L and RNAV (GPS) Z Runway 28R approaches to SFO.
Date: 201812
Location: RBG.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I wanted to express my concern that perhaps not enough attention has been paid to this airport and our options to operate in and out of here safely per company standards. In my opinion the only safe operation into RBG would be a straight in to Runway 34 with no option for a circle to 16. We arrived with a slight tailwind; but with the terrain involved to land on the wind favored Runway (16) it seemed prudent to land straight in. Even landing proved to be challenging with respect to stabilized approach criteria. I do not see how it would be possible to circle west per RNAV (GPS)-B and still maintain stabilized approach criteria as the rising terrain would make it nearly; if not totally impossible to descend safely. This airport has already been flagged as mountainous and with day only operations allowed. The bowl that this airport sits in is also [a] concern for departures out of here when visibility is lowered due to the certain morning fog. Not to be over dramatic; but this place seems like the perfect storm for a CFIT situation if some tighter rules are not implemented. I appreciate your attention to this matter and please let me know if I can answer any questions.




Synopsis: Small transport aircraft First Officer reported concerns about circling approach criteria at RBG airport.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: A300
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After we pushed back to deice and engine start we recognized the flight number and crew name discrepancies on the paperwork. The Captain corrected the crew numbers in the initialization and contacted flight control about the discrepancies and to update the flight plan. After recognition of the paperwork issues we did everything we could to mitigate the situation before starting our taxi for departure. I need to be more disciplined in cross checking the paperwork to aircraft and crew especially on a turn when trying to make up time from a delay and when there is a lot to do in less time; and on the backside [of] a duty day. It would have been beneficial if we could have been notified in some manner that we would be doing a tail swap. Also of benefit is if the Captain's name was printed on the release next to the signature line. Personally I would probably recognize an incorrect name before an incorrect tail number; especially if I was predisposed from habit to expect to fly the second leg in the same tail as the first leg.


Second narrative: Upon landing in ZZZ; there was another A-300 on the ramp. Since we were running late and believed that we would spend minimal time on the ground in ZZZ; we called inside and asked for our Flight Release to be brought to the airplane. Ground Ops went uneventfully in ZZZ. After pushing back and calling for taxi; Ground control notified us that there was no flight plan on file for us. We thought this was very odd since we had received a PDC. This caused us to investigate and we discovered that we were actually [a different flight number] in the ACARS initialize page. Then we noticed the Flight Release was for [a different aircraft] and our names were not on this release. Then we called our dispatcher and it became very obvious that the other A-300 that was on the ramp and had already blocked out was the airplane we were supposed to be operating on. Flight Dispatch made some necessary changes and we operated to ZZZ1 uneventfully.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported that after being pushed back and during taxi they realized they had the flight number that was associated with the adjacent aircraft.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp IAH
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: West Ramp cleared us to taxi RC-RB to park and monitor East Ramp. On RB; we crossed over to the non-movement area and taxied towards the gate X. Getting closer to the gate I realized we were heading for the wrong gate so I prompted the Captain. He immediately stopped. We cross-checked and confirmed our parking gate was Y and not X. The Captain began to maneuver the aircraft through the right for gate Y and called 'clear left.' I also turned my head to the right to clear the right side when I saw another aircraft taxiing from behind on XX towards the east. I immediately called 'stop there is traffic from behind.' The Captain stopped immediately until the traffic passed and then we continued successfully to Y. We did not hear about the traffic on the radio and Ramp did not call or prompt us about the traffic.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported proceeding towards wrong gate before a ground conflict occurred as flight crew turned towards correct gate.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
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 Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; passing approximately 2;000 feet MSL; the First Observer noticed a status message and a momentary Bleed 2 EICAS message. Upon review of the bleed control panel; he noted #1; #2; and #4 bleed off lights were illuminated with the bleed switches selected open. He quickly looked at the synoptic page and verified #1; #2; and #4 bleed valves were closed. I directed a climb to 10;000 feet to get above most VFR GA aircraft; and we leveled at 10;000 feet to begin assessing the situation. Radios were transferred to the Pilot Flying from the right seat and the First Observer; Second Observer; and I began to assess the situation.We observed the following Status MessagesENG 3 FIRE LP BBLEED OVPRESS 2BLEED PRV ENG 3There were no EICAS messages present.ECS (Environmental Control System) Synoptic was reviewed and we confirmed that only the #3 Bleed Valve was open.To assist ATC; we climbed to FL180 and leveled off; continuing to assess and evaluate the situation. We elected to cycle each malfunctioning bleed valve independently; but the #1; #2 and #4 valves remained closed. We did not cycle the #3 valve as it was the only source of air available to the aircraft.I initiated a conference call with Dispatch and Maintenance Control. The decision was made to return to ZZZ. Since we would be overweight I asked Dispatch if they wanted us to dump fuel; or burn it off. I was given approval for either choice.The crew agreed the best course of action was to return to ZZZ and burn down to the maximum normal landing weight by creating excessive drag. We held at low altitude for approximately 15 minutes to burn down to normal landing weight; uneventfully landing on XXC with flaps 30 and Autobrakes 3.It should be noted that during the descent; and any time engine thrust was reduced; the #1; #2; and #4 Bleed Valves opened and operated normally. The malfunction re-manifested itself anytime thrust levers were advanced.Our collective assessment was the #3 PRV had failed creating a manifold over pressure situation. However; we did not conduct any inflight trouble shooting of the #3 Bleed Valve to preclude compounding the loss of three bleed systems and the potential to lose all bleed air on the aircraft.ATC Controllers provided excellent assistance throughout the malfunction.




Synopsis: B747-400 flight crew reported a bleed valve malfunction inflight resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon raising the gear lever after takeoff we received Gear Disagree and Nose Door Open Master Warning messages; and Weight on Wheels (WOW) Input Master Caution message. I was Pilot Flying (PF) and the Pilot Monitoring (PM) asked ATC if we could level off at 5;000ft to trouble shoot a gear issue. We maintained 200 KIAS and received vectors to stay near [the departure airport] while we ran QRH. Completed all checklists and contacted Dispatcher and [Maintenance] via ACARS. We decided that returning to [the departure airport] was the best thing to do in the interest of safety and resources. Also; [the departure airport] has a 11;400ft runway; Air and Rescue Firefighters (ARFF) and the weather was VMC with light winds. I made a PA to the passengers and to the Flight Attendants (FA); and we held to burn fuel to get to our landing weight. We declared an emergency with ATC and made a safe and normal landing at [the departure airport]. We taxied to the gate with no further issues and deplaned at the gate. All passengers and crew were safe and well. ARFF Lead meet me at the gate to ensure we were ok and cleared us. Local Maintenance deferred the gear retraction and we continued our revenue flight to [our destination] with gear down and locked and made a safe and normal landing.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported that after takeoff the landing gear would not retract.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After 3;000 feet on the departure; we started accelerating and cleaning up the aircraft. Between flaps 5 and 1; ATC cleared us to climb to 14;000 feet on the HHERO 3 departure. After cleanup we received a traffic call out for traffic at 9 o'clock and 9;000 feet. I started searching outside for the traffic and never did see the traffic. When I looked back in we were climbing through 9;500 feet and saw the DOLLF below 8;000 feet restriction. The Captain (Pilot Flying) noticed VNAV (Vertical Navigation) was not selected and selected VNAV; but at that point we were climbing through 9;500 feet. We had a conversation about whether we were cleared to climb via or unrestricted to 14;000 feet. Due to the issued climb instruction during aircraft cleanup; I couldn't recall if it was via or unrestricted. Asking for confirmation at that point would have been useless. That's when we realized we may have deviated from our climb instructions. ATC never attempted to issue a correction and we were handed off to LA Center who notified us of a possible deviation.Prioritize searching for the traffic with backing up Pilot Flying and ensuring VNAV was selected. Not making contact with ATC until aircraft was cleaned up. ATC realizing flight crew workload on that departure and giving clearances at a later time.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported confusion about clearance to either climb via or climb unrestricted resulted in a clearance deviation.