elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor Bleed Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff the Cabin Altitude Warning sounded passing 10000 MSL. During preflight we requested and received takeoff data for a Flaps 5 Bleeds ON takeoff. During taxi out we received an error twice when attempting to get final takeoff data for Flaps 5 Bleeds ON. This seemed a little unusual since our takeoff weight had decreased from the planned weight. We then requested and received takeoff data for a Flaps 5 Bleeds OFF takeoff.While holding number 1 for takeoff we told tower we needed a few minutes to complete our checklists. We then reconfigured the Bleeds panel for a Bleeds Off takeoff and completed the Before Takeoff checklist. At this point neither of us remembered that we needed to start the APU which had been shut down after engine start.After takeoff I noticed the Cabin was climbing quickly and placed the Right bleed switch on and configure the bleed panel for normal operations. The Cabin Alt Warning horn sounded briefly and the cabin descended immediately back below 10000 ft.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a bleeds off takeoff from a high altitude airport with the APU shut down which resulted in the cabin altitude warning sounding at 10;000 feet.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SWF.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SWF
ATC / advisory: Tower SWF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While inbound to SWF; we were established on a 20 mile right downwind for Runway 27 at 5;000 MSL. Weather was VFR and we had briefed the visual 27 backed up with the ILS 27. We had discussed the terrain; MSA's and highest obstacle well north of the field at 2;000 FT. We were advised of a departure off 27 which would depart to the north and were told that we would be vectored for a left downwind for the visual approach 27; and a descent to 4;000 MSL. At approximately 5 NM west of the field; and the field in sight; we we're cleared the visual approach to 27. At roughly abeam the field; we began to slow and put 2;500 FT into the MCP; THE FAF altitude at POPOW. We both saw and discussed the 1;745 tower south and abeam of POPOW. While level at 2;500 MSL; and maneuvering south of the tower; we planned to intercept the localizer outside of POPOW. As we crossed the east bank of the water feature; we received a terrain warning; 'TERRAIN; PULL UP'. We immediately executed a CFIT maneuver; the warning ceased; and we leveled at 1;000 MSL. The terrain was in sight and was cleared visually as well. The terrain display on the HSI showed only green throughout the event. We then maneuvered to intercept the LOC outside of POPOW; and landed uneventfully. After landing; the crew discussed that neither had ever been cleared the visual approach from the south side of the airfield. We realized that the rapidly rising terrain east of the water extends well south of the tower. In hindsight; we realized that we should have referenced the south MSA's and the highest altitude on the approach into our decision making process. Perhaps the 10-10 page should mention a caution of terrain east and south of the airfield while recommending a 3;500MSL altitude until established on the localizer.


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


Synopsis: A flight crew failed to properly brief a 1;745 FT communications towers abeam SWF Runway 27 Final Approach Fix POPOW and executed the CFIT escape maneuver after an EGPWS TERRAIN; PULL UP warning while turning to Runway 27 final.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger was non compliant for the mask policy. During boarding I had to ask her once to cover her face with the mask; as it was completely off. Second; she had it below her nose after takeoff and I asked her to cover her nose and she turned away and ignored me; so I stood there and asked again and she reluctantly barely covered her nose. She was eating and drinking a lot; to the point where she wouldn't keep her mask on. It was not briefly like the announcement stated. I gave her a final warning as I gave her the benefit of the doubt and she was disrespectful and rude about the situation. She accused me of not letting her eat or drink and I explained the policy and how it works. That was my final warning and I called the pilots to request a Supervisor or CSR to meet the aircraft and have a discussion with her.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non-compliant about wearing a face mask.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Weight approximately 141.0; Flap 1; 22K Max [thrust set] (adjusted to max due to gusty winds and landing aircraft reporting a 20 knot gain at 300 feet).During [takeoff] roll the aircraft experienced a sudden; significant and uncommanded yaw to the right. Initiated reject procedure at approximately 140 knots. Asked for Fire and Rescue to look over the aircraft. They noticed nothing unusual; brakes were not overheating; taxied to the gate.


Second narrative: Just above 140 knots we experienced a sudden lunge to the right. Captain elected to reject the takeoff. The abort was handled professionally with all SOPs adhered to. Emergency crews were called to look our airplane over and after the fire chief said the brakes of the airplane was 160 degrees we taxied back to the gate with the emergency crews following us. I don't know why this event occurred but the winds were gusting with aircraft landing reporting 20 knot gain on approach.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff at 140 knots after experiencing a sudden uncommanded yaw.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was given an assignment to complete when I arrived for my work shift. My lead asked me to look into [a specific] Non-Routine.I looked up the paperwork to repair the conduit as requested by my lead; and went out to inspect the extent of the damage. After I inspected the extent of the damage; I let my lead know that the conduit required replacement In Accordance With (IAW) the Boeing Standard Wiring Practices Manual (BSWPM). He told me it's okay just repair it; to which I refused to do because the manuals says that any damage MORE than 25 percent of the circumference requires replacement. He told me I just need to do it because the Line Maintenance Manager told him to get it repaired. At this point I handed my lead the paperwork and said I would not repair it; so I was put on another task. My lead proceeded to instruct one of our unlicensed mechanics to repair it by placing Teflon tape inside the conduit and filling it with red silicone and taping the outside of the conduit up. My lead annotated on the paperwork the following:1) ASSESSED DAMAGE TO L/H BODY GEAR CONDUIT; FOUND TO MEET CONDITIONS FOR REPAIR AS DESCRIBED PER BSWPM 2) NO DAMAGE EXISTS TO WIRES OR CONVOLUTED TUBE AS DESCRIBED IAW BSWPM 3) REPAIRED METAL OVERBRAID WITH NO DEFECTS IAW BSWPM




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician disagreed with a Lead Technician on the use of an electrical conduit repair based upon the extent of the damage.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center EGTT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain was the PF and I was the PM. During the arrival to EGLL we were told to expect holding at OCK for approximately 8 minutes. At approximately 10 miles from OCK; we were told no holding would be required and to depart OCK on a heading of 360 degrees. Runways in use were 27L/R. We expected 27R and that is what we had in the FMC and had briefed. We then overflew the airport and were given a right turn to downwind and a descent clearance to 4;000 feet with 28 miles to fly. We started down at 600 fpm. We then were given right turns to intercept the localizer and descend on the glide path. We were never given a runway and we did not query the controllers as to what runway we were to use. We intercepted the localizer and were on the glidepath for 27R at about 12 DME when the controller asked us to confirm Runway 27L. We said we will join 27L and made a turn left. I quickly reprogrammed the FMC and recycled the flight directors while the Captain manually flew the airplane visually to join the final for 27L. The remainder of the approach and landing was uneventful.The controllers failed to assign us a runway and we failed to query them. Never assume what runway you will land on at EGLL. And; perhaps we should not load an approach until we are instructed on what runway we can expect.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported they were not assigned a runway by ATC; but were told to intercept the localizer. They did not query the Controller; nor each other; and lined up on the wrong runway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: 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: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on the GEELA Arrival into PHX and were cleared from 41;000 FT to FL330. I engaged VNAV and we started descending. Before we got to 33;000 FT; we were cleared off the airway and given a different altitude; then slowed to 250 KTS and told to cross SCOLE at 280 KTS or less. Shortly after; we were cleared to BLYTHE and to descend via the arrival; except for airspeed. Since we were below path at this point; I selected vertical speed 1;000 FT and was going to wait to get back on path before selecting VNAV again. Once we were cleared for the arrival; I selected 15;000 FT in the MCP for protection on the next crossing altitude. We were then cleared again via the arrival and to comply with speeds. As we approached MUNSTR; the restriction was 15;000 FT and I noticed the airplane shallowing out the descent and started to look at the box to see what exactly was happening. I noticed a speed intervention of 250 KTS selected. At that point; the Captain said we should cross at 15;000 FT and we noticed the plane was about 500 FT below. I stopped the descent and returned to 15;000 FT. There was no conflict with other aircraft or terrain and that was it. We descended the rest of the arrival on path. I would like to see ATC manage the arrivals better. In a highly complex arrival with multiple altitude and speed changes; it adds complexity to be given different speeds and altitudes and then told to go back to the original arrival profile. We could have verbalized better what the automation was doing when we first sensed confusion.




Synopsis: A B737-NG on the PHX GEELA arrival was vectored off the STAR routing; given a speed restriction; and when in the SPD and V/S modes; the 15;000 FT MUNSTR constraint dropped out so the aircraft did not level.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Flight] departed en route to JZI. The aircraft was deviating due to weather. The aircraft requested a shortcut when done deviating. I issued the aircraft direct Charleston VOR. Both HVQ and CHS were in the aircraft's route. I assumed the aircraft would go to HVQ; but the aircraft went to CHS VOR. Both are Charleston VOR. The aircraft did not question which Charleston VOR he was cleared to. Change the name of HVQ or CHS VOR. Make sure to phonetically spell the name of the VOR.




Synopsis: ZOB Controller reported clearing an aircraft 'Direct Charleston' expecting him to navigate to HVQ; but the aircraft set up course for CHS. Both VORs are Charleston; and both were on the filed route; so reporter recommends changing the name of one of the VORs.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: KIDDZ 1 arrival is new and very high pilot workload. The Controller was chewing out several guys who weren't exactly on the 'descend via the STAR.' This arrival takes full concentration and if there were weather or other issues to deal with; it would be too much. Various step downs in very short distances with a few different speeds makes what I feel to be too much work load unless you have a modern plane with avionics that will do all the VNAV automatically for you. We never busted anything; but were both astonished at the amount of work this arrival took. We felt like we were in a sim ride. Ask FAA to rewrite these arrivals to be less workload for the pilots for safety sake.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain believes that the KIDDZ 1 arrival HOU is too demanding for pilots of older technology aircraft such as his.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAV.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SAV
ATC / advisory: Tower SAV
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While conducting the RNAV 28 Approach into SAV; the PIC spotted what appeared to be a large red/orange/black drone pass off the left side of the aircraft by approximately 200 hundred feet while level at 1800 MSL and 5 to 6 miles from the runway. The First Officer did not see the object but did report the possible drone sighting to the Tower. No evasive maneuvers were required and the approach and landing continued without incident. After shutdown; one of the passengers reported to the crew that they had also seen a drone pass off the left side of the aircraft. The PIC then made a follow-up phone call to the Tower to confirm the drone sighting.




Synopsis: Light transport Captain reported sighting a UAV while on RNAV 28 Approach to SAV.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I operated C208B and I used my personal cellphone inflight to communicate with Dispatch. While enroute to ZZZ; monitoring ATIS; ZZZ went below landing minimums. I checked local airports in the vicinity through the inflight flight information service and determined ZZZ1 was a suitable alternate. I notified ATC to change my alternate to ZZZ1. I calculated my fuel reserves and determined that I only have enough loiter fuel for one turn in holding before having to proceed to my alternate. With additional traffic inbound to ZZZ1 and stacked holding; my fuel situation dictated that my better cause of action would be to proceed immediately to alternate and wait the weather out on the ground there. My 20 past years of flying; before mandatory retirement; lead me to believe that a call was necessary to Dispatch to inform them of the situation and course of action. I would normally have contacted ARINC and requested a phone patch without ACARS equipment. Company never trained caravan pilots for this option; nor provided the contact frequencies; although it is in their General Operations Manual. So; I made the bad decision to use my personal cell phone to contact Dispatch. In addition to making the call in a non-emergency circumstance; informing dispatch is not a requirement what-so-ever for this part 135 operation. I was later debriefed by the Company station manager that this violated Federal Aviation Regulations. I was informed two days later and put on suspension pending investigation. On my own initiative; I researched ARINC frequency distribution; found the frequency for Radio in our primary operating area. Next day; I ran a successful phone patch test to dispatch. After arriving at base; I made available the ARINC location grid and ground facility frequency guide to my fellow crew members. I was informed/educated that there is no requirement to be in contact with Dispatch in part 135 operations. My mistake entirely. My flying career in the USAF and my twenty years of flying part 121 operations lead me mistakenly assume that our dispatch has to be in the decision process of aircraft movement. I stand corrected and seriously consider resigning my position as a caravan captain.




Synopsis: C208B pilot reported he contacted Dispatch with his personal cell phone when required to divert due to weather conditions. This is not a part 135 requirement and violated FARs.