elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our initial routing was the GILLL1 arrival into IAH from LFT. ATC issued a reroute for thunderstorms developing in the area from present position direct to GEARR; BAYYY; and GILLL intersections; then resume the GILLL1 arrival. As PM; I confirmed the reroute with ATC. Later on; ATC cleared us to cross BAYYY at 12;000 FT; which we complied with. ATC told us to resume the arrival as we approached GILLL. My Captain set 6;000 FT for RDFSH; I verified it; and we started down. When ATC asked us to verify level; I responded we were descending via the arrival. After discussion; my Captain and I realized they cleared us to resume the arrival but not to descend via the arrival. Immediately after ATC asked about our altitude; they did clear us down to 6;000 FT; the altitude on the arrival.Thunderstorms developing in the area led to an ATC reroute. When we got the clearance to resume the arrival; we started to descend via the arrival in addition to following the course; when our clearance had just been to resume the arrival.When resuming a descend-via arrival after a reroute and/or vectors; verify with ATC whether they want the descend- via portion of the arrival as well as track.




Synopsis: After completing an ATC directed weather avoidance track and complying with a clearance to descent to 12;000 FT on arrival to IAH; an EMB-145 flight crew was cleared to 'resume' the GILLL RNAV STAR which had been part of their enroute clearance prior to the deviation. The flight crew failed to note the distinction between resuming the STAR and 'descending via' it and began an unauthorized descent intended to comply with the charted restrictions.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During decent on the RNP X approach to Runway XXR we received a 'caution terrain' warning. The First Officer; who was pilot flying immediately disengaged the autopilot; and stopped the descent; and turned to steepen up the turn away from the terrain. We were approaching the waypoint ZZZZZ. The remainder of the approach; and landing proceeded normally. It was still daylight; and we were in VMC conditions.I failed to see the company NOTAM that stated the RNP X XXR was unusable. I had made a similar RNP approach recently to ZZZ1 landing west; but now realize that was to XXL; not XXR. I was feeling rushed in ZZZ; and the release was brought out to the plane late in the boarding process. I still should have taken the time to read; and understand ALL of the release. It might be helpful also; if the company could have Jeppesen print on the plates that are NOTAMed out some sort of warning. Perhaps making it not selectable in the FMS would be helpful too.




Synopsis: Q400 flight crew reported flying an approach that was NOTAMed out of service; resulting in a terrain warning.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Air carrier inbound on OAKES2 Arrival to Oakland International Airport (OAK) at 6;000 feet had to respond to a TCAS RA approximately 15 miles east of OAK due to a VFR aircraft that was on a 1200 code southeast bound indicating 5;500 feet. The 5;500 foot traffic was issued to the air carrier approximately 10 miles prior to their merging point and the air carrier reported that he had; 'Traffic in sight.' within about 8 miles of their merging point. At the merging point; the air carrier responded to a TCAS RA and climbed to an altitude of about 6;300 feet. The VFR aircraft at 5;500 feet was not in communication with NCT approach.The San Francisco (SFO) Class B airspace does not provide adequate airspace protection for Oakland arrival traffic. It allows VFR aircraft to fly directly into the path of IFR commercial aircraft that are descending into Oakland without any communication with ATC. This is a severe deficit in the National Airspace System and it may result in a midair collision someday.I recommend lowering the SFO Class B shelves. The 8;000-10;000 foot shelf should be lowered to 6;000 feet. The 6;000-10;000 foot shelf should be lowered to 4;000 feet. And the 4;000-10;000 foot shelf should be lowered to 3;000 feet. This would protect the Oakland final approach traffic; but still would allow VFR aircraft to fly underneath the Class B airspace.




Synopsis: Aircraft on IFR arrival route responded to a TCAS/RA to avoid a VFR aircraft. TRACON had issued the traffic to the IFR arrival pilot and the pilot reported the traffic in sight. The IFR arrival aircraft was restricted to 6;000 feet to stay above the VFR target who's Mode C indicated 5;500 feet. The reporter states this is a routine occurrence in this area as the overlying Class B Airspace does not provide protection for this airport's arrival routes.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When taxi instructions were issued they were 'Company flight number; taxi Juliet Bravo to Runway 4.' LaGuardia had a steady stream of arrivals but we were the only aircraft taxiing out. We taxied to the Runway 4 hold short line and were waiting our turn. Tower sent the next two aircraft around and at first issued instructions for us to 'line up and wait' and then reissued instructions to cross Runway 4. We were eventually taxied back to Runway 4 again. There was obviously a problem but we had no clue as what or why. ATC was queried and we found out there was an issue with our wing tip clearance onto the runway landing zone. We were the cause of the two aircraft going around. As we taxied back to the runway; we were told to hold short at the ILS hold short line. We complied. On ATIS Juliet there was the remark; 'ILS hold line in use.' It seems it is common practice to hold short of the ILS hold short line and not the runway hold short line when using Runway 4 even during daylight VFR conditions. There is no mention on our Commercial Chart's [key notes] page of this practice although there is a caution on the [other notes] page; which states; Aircraft taxiing on Bravo for Runway 4 departure may be instructed to hold at the ILS hold short line. Although ATC failed to issue these instructions to us; it would be a good idea to include this in the [key notes] page so that we would be aware of a common practice at LaGuardia when operating landing and departing aircraft on Runway 4.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier taxiing for departure at LGA passed the ILS hold line for Runway 4 resulting in several ATC issued go arounds; the reporter noting more exacting information regarding this common procedure should be published.
Date: 201603
Location: VHHH.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure from HKG runway 7R; OCEAN 2A SID. On switch to Departure control; I asked for high speed. The controller said unable and immediately cleared the Company flight just in front of us to go direct to OCEAN. I thought the clearance was for us and read back direct to OCEAN. The controller was difficult to understand with a thick accent. I selected direct OCEAN in the FMC. Then the controller read the clearance again and I confirmed. The Pilot Flying (PF) was hand flying and asked for speed intervene 220 and flaps 10. I then executed the direct OCEAN in the FMC. The relief pilot then inquired about the clearance so I confirmed with controller. The controller told us to stay on the SID spelling out each letter. I didn't understand this phraseology. The second time I understood he meant for us to stay on the SID. The SID was now deleted from the FMC so I asked for direct to OCEAN. Controller said unable and to climb to 9;000. I asked for direct to TD. Controller said unable. I asked for a heading to rejoin the SID. Controller said unable. I then attempted to reinstall the SID and give the PF a heading. PF flying flew 130 degree heading. PF was still hand flying so I asked him to engage the autopilot. Controller gave us climb 8;000. As I was reinstalling the SID; Controller gave us direct to TD. We then proceeded direct TD and leveled at 8000. Fatigue is always a factor when things go wrong. Multiple events led up to this issue.


Second narrative: Captain Pilot Monitoring (PM) accepted and executed another airplane's clearance to go 'Direct OCEAN' at the same moment it was received. Did not heed warnings or attempt to verify with PF or relief pilots. Was a total goat rope as he tried to reload FMC; and the PF was flustered with erroneous flight director data. PF then blew through a change of level off altitude by about 300 feet. A real tragic circus show completely preventable with execution of proper SOP.


Synopsis: On the OCEAN departure from HKG; the Captain executed a clearance for another aircraft to go direct OCEAN. This resulted in an improper flight guidance which created confusion and led to track and altitude deviations.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Air interrupt; returned to departure station. Lost both Left and Right radar systems. All [Company] procedures were followed. SAT COM was initiated to Dispatch to discuss continuing or diverting. Maintenance was brought up on frequency as possible resource by Dispatcher. Maintenance pinged the aircraft and confirmed the loss of both radars. Dispatcher was asked to confirm thunderstorm activities along our route. Dispatcher confirmed there was substantial activity forecast for the [subsequent] part of our route. ZZZ had also experienced substantial storm activity earlier in the day and we were headed east. Dispatcher informed us he was uncomfortable with us continuing to ZZZZ. We agreed. We agreed to return to ZZZ and initiated the diversion. Into the diversion we were briefed by the Purser of strange electrical activities in the cabin. These activities included loss of forward galley power to ovens and coffee makers. Intermittent loss of aft galley power and dimmable cabin windows stuck in dark mode. This non normal activity and the timing of it was relayed to Dispatch. Conversation occurred about landing overweight. With this additional unexplained electrical activity it was agreed with the Dispatcher that we would [advise ATC] and land overweight. All [Company] checks were completed including Overweight Landing and Non-Routine landing. [Priority handling was requested] with ZZZ. Landing on Runway XXR was accomplished. Touched down store data was retrieved. It showed 184 FPM. All appropriate log book entries were entered in log book.




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported electrical failures and loss of both radar systems; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201509
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After the parking checklist was completed and we were in the process of deplaning; a ramp agent came up to the cabin to tell us that the nose gear had left the pavement and the nose was beginning to rise and the tail to fall. He told us to stop passengers from exiting the aircraft which we did; immediately. After a short time; we actually felt the nose gear come back down (we never felt it come off the ground). We waited until the ramp personnel gave us the green light to continue deplaning and there was no further incident. Pilot bulletin says we are supposed to get ACARS notification if the potential exists for a passenger loading problem. We did not get any notice.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that; during deplaning of passengers; a Ramp Agent advised that the aircraft's nose gear was rising and the tail was falling. Passenger deplaning was stopped until aircraft stabilized.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZJX; Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y landing VPS was descending over V198 to FL200. Aircraft X; a departure from CQF in P31; was vectored NE bound to climbing to FL190 to allow Aircraft Y to descend south of the aircraft. Traffic was called to both aircraft. Aircraft X read back '200 Aircraft X' which was not caught or verified by the controller.The controller was busy separating aircraft arriving and descending to the northeast CEW landing VPS. When the controller noticed Aircraft X starting to climb; Aircraft Y was turned 25R to the southeast to try to get some lateral separation. At first since the targets were close; I thought it was MODE C interlace. Since I was unsure what altitude Aircraft X was climbing to I decided to try to get lateral separation instead of vertical. Upon further query Aircraft X misunderstood the traffic call and thought it was a climb to FL200.Traffic at the CEW sector has increased by multitudes over the past year due to numerous airlines starting and expanding service to the FL panhandle. Before COVID; the departure list from the 3 panhandle complexes (P31; Eglin RAPCON; and Tyndall RAPCON) rarely went over 30 proposed departures. Now we are regularly seeing 40-50 proposed departures.When the military airspace gets activated; the sector becomes an inverse T with about 10 MI on either side of the 'T' to separate commercial jets; slow props; military trainers; and fighters.The departures and arrivals are all filed over the same fix CEW creating a dangerous situation with minimal time to solve conflicts. There should be a redesign of this sector.




Synopsis: ZJX Center Controller reported an aircraft started a climb due to incorrect readback/hearback which resulted in a loss of standard separation.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: [We] encountered numerous EICAS Warnings; Cautions; and Advisories along with several status messages all of which were unrelated to one another. Suspected water in Electronic Compartment and returned to airport. [We] landed at 205;100 LBS.Maintenance found evidence of water in Electronic Compartment; possibly from pallets loaded on main cargo deck. Airport had rain in the early evening but it was not raining when crew showed for flight.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew; suspecting water in the Electronics Compartment due to heavy rains during the aircraft's layover; returned to its departure airport when multiple unrelated EICAS Warnings; Cautions Status and Advisories messages were displayed shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201911
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our fueling carts are old and they leak badly. When our aircraft arrived; there was a 5 foot wide fuel leak. Ramp Lead called it in to have someone address this issue. I ran a dog to airfreight and when I returned to the gate; the Fueler was fueling in a 10 foot fuel spill and hadn't stopped the spill at the source and fueled in a puddle. When completed; his Supervisor showed up and put fuel dry on it; like always. All of our gates have fuel dry stains where carts sit. 2 things; fueled in a fuel spill. With a spilling cart; and carts leaking; [it] caused an environmental issue. This is a daily issue.




Synopsis: Ground Personnel reported a hazardous condition from leaking fuel carts and fuel cart spillage.