elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SKED.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SKED
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I am concerned about the use of UQ108 due to high terrain between waypoints ILVIR and GEKAR. There is a mountain peak (El Cocuy) in Colombia that is 5;428 meters or 17;841 FT high within 2 NM of the airway centerline (N0627.5 W07222.1). The B777 has an emergency descent profile for decompression that reads; 'When descending in vicinity of high terrain - level off at 17;000 FT for 10 minutes from the time the passenger oxygen was deployed.' My fear is that in the middle of the night under duress of a rapid decompression event; a crew would follow the emergency descent procedure and end up almost 1;000 FT below the terrain while on the airway. When I have been routed on UQ108 airway in the past I have discussed the issue with Dispatch; the B777 Fleet Manager and NavData/Terrain. All of these entities have told me they would look into the issue and get back to me. I am still waiting.There are other viable alternate airways in Colombia to use such as UL417 located 40 NM west which does not pose as high a risk for terrain as UQ108. I am hoping that Dispatch will block the use of UQ108 between ILVIR and GEKAR.




Synopsis: A B777 Captain reported that the use of UQ108 in Colombia is inconsistent with the aircraft's emergency descent procedure over high terrain in that there is a mountain peak; El Cucoy; that rises to an altitude some 871 FT higher than the procedure's temporary level off altitude of 17;000 FT.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Now that we have brought back more service in the main cabin on our flight to ZZZ1 we were in the aisle for an extended period. Having to ask each person if they wanted ice as well as cream or sugar for coffee made each interaction extended and many passengers took their mask off when ordering. Having to hand someone ice in a cup then a can; and coffee and cream and sugar I noticed many people touched my hand during the exchange. Then with the hand the passenger just touched I touched the ice scoop or the next passenger's items. This put me at risk as well with touching. I felt this is a safety risk for myself and other customers getting cross contamination. When I was able wear gloves during service it at least cut down my personal risk but people would still get the cross contamination. When it was just cans it I was easier to give it quickly and without getting touched by people's bare hands. I didn't have to lean down close to find out how many creams or sugars and ice or no ice. Many people asked for multiple items that slowed us down as well. Don't do coffee right now or have sealed cream and sugar so we can hand them one sealed package with both. Also we need to just not do ice. We are putting our safety as well as the guest at risk by putting service over safety.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported cross-contamination concerns with the increase in food and beverage services provided to passengers during flights.
Date: 201603
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were climbing out and I was sitting up front awaiting another pilot to return from using the lavatory before starting my break. Climbing through FL250; I noticed the left generator OFF and DRIVE lights both on simultaneously. [The other pilot] and I performed the electronic checklist which included starting the APU and we both decided to continue towards [destination]. Leveling at FL320; I looked up and now saw the right generator OFF and DRIVE lights on simultaneously. We performed the checklist and this time; with 2 main generators inoperative and their drives disconnected per the checklist; we elected to return to jettison fuel and return to [departure airport]. Jettison was performed and [we] landed without incident. No emergency was declared and no special handling was requested. Upon landing; the mechanics pulled up the Electrical Page in the Maintenance Log and found that the left GENERATOR Oil level showed 'Service' and the right GENERATOR Oil level showed 'Normal'. Further; the Left GENERATOR Filter showed 'Blocked'. The Right GENERATOR Filter also showed 'Blocked'.




Synopsis: A B777 Captain reported returning to their international departure airport after losing both main generators in flight.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Other Flight Instruction
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF LGU
Reporter organization: Other Flight Instruction
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My student was on his first solo flight. When he landed on Runway 28 there was another aircraft on short final. He did a full stop taxi back and taxi back on the runway. The second pilot increased the throttle and it sounded like he was going to go-around. As soon as the flying aircraft was situated they pulled the throttle to idle. He descended and was 10 feet above the tail of my students aircraft and landed 700 ft down the runway. Once my student finished the 180 degree turn to head down the runway he saw the approaching aircraft and steered the plane to the edge of the runway. Both pilots steered away from an accident and taxied to their respective hangars.

Callback: The situation was; the student was back taxiing on Runway 10 after landing on Runway 28 while the second aircraft was landing on Runway 28. The student saw the other aircraft and partially exited the Runway in order to avoid the landing aircraft which flew over him.



Synopsis: An instructor observing his Student Pilot's first solo flight witnessed the student land on LGU Runway 28; then as the student back taxied on Runway 10 another aircraft land over his student's aircraft on Runway 28 which the student has partially exited.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
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 B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Event started on left downwind for 01R at LAS; CF fix in the MCDU for guidance. Assigned speed and altitude; no relief until vectored through the centerline; at which time clearance for visual was given. At this point we were very close and very high; due to ATC. We determined that a safe and stable approach could not be made; and executed a go-around; and advised ATC. As we passed 4;200 FT; busy configuring; still at TOGA; ATC assigned us 4;000 FT. We advised unable. As we passed 5;100 FT; ATC assigned us 5;000 FT; we advised unable. ATC then assigned 7;000. We leveled off at 7;000; and accelerated to 230 KTS; clean configuration. Received vectors for ILS 01L; landing uneventful.All approaches in LAS have a missed approach altitude of 6;000 FT. If we did not have to chance that in the middle of a go-around; it would relieve us from talking to ATC; and we can concentrate on flying and reconfiguring. Also controllers must realize that when an aircraft is climbing through or is close to an altitude on a go-around; it will not be able to level off there. And finally; controllers should not try to vector an aircraft close in and high and still expect that it can land.


Second narrative: ATC should not vector us so close to the airport and so high when doing visuals. Additionally; they should assign altitudes that are reasonable above the current altitude when aircraft is executing go-arounds.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew executed a go-around after being vectored through the centerline; and in close and high for a visual approach to LAS.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We waited 5-10 minutes for takeoff clearance. I asked for status for clearance; both the F/O (First Officer) and I understood we were waiting for crossing takeoff traffic off [crossing runway]. Neither of us ever saw departure traffic. We were given takeoff clearance finally and we executed the takeoff roll. At approximately 110 knots Tower instructed '(Callsign) cancel takeoff clearance' and I executed the RTO (Rejected Takeoff) procedures. The autobrakes went to full RTO and we came to a stop. I queried Tower for the reason for the cancellation; and they said for safety of flight because (other carrier) airline landing on [parallel runway] was going around and there were separation problems. I assumed the problem was the crossing traffic on departure conflicts. We cleared the runway and ran the hot brakes numbers. It required 30 minutes of brake cooling and then we resumed the flight.


Second narrative: We were holding in position for approximately 10 minutes. Tower had informed us that we were holding in place for departing traffic on [crossing runway]. We never caught glance of this traffic. The Captain queried the Tower and they immediately cleared us for takeoff. At approximately 110 knots; the Captain heard Tower cancel our takeoff clearance. He performed a high-speed rejection procedure. In his view; safety a flight would've been jeopardized which is why he aborted for a reason other than our 'Big 4.' The reason for the rejected takeoff was that [an] aircraft on the parallel runway went around. In our view; Tower could have simply turned him to the right as we were already cleared for takeoff and well beyond the 80-knot threshold for low speed rejection. We pulled clear of the runway and taxied to an apron while I ran the brake cooling procedure in weight and balance. Once our time requirement had been met; we continued to [destination] without further incident.


Synopsis: 737-800 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff due to an aircraft on the parallel runway executing a missed approach.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure from TEB Runway 24 the crew brief/actions were: positive rate of climb; retract landing gear; 400 FT AGL retract flaps; set climb power with autothrottles and engage the autopilot. With FMS LNAV; VNAV and autopilot engaged with the altitude capture mode annunciated on the RNAV 1 departure; the aircraft overshot the level off altitude of 1;500 MSL by 120 FT (1;620 MSL). As the pilot flying I used the 'touch control steering' mode to descend to and re-capture the correct altitude. ATC made no mention of the slight altitude deviation and there were no traffic conflicts. The previous model GLF 5/V model I flew did not have any overshoot problems on this departure. It was a night departure and I had to engage the LNAV lateral mode after takeoff instead of having it selected before the takeoff roll. The aircraft was at a light weight and we used a high climb angle to alleviate noise at this noise sensitive airport. In the future I will more closely monitor vertical performance when using the VNAV mode.




Synopsis: A GLF5/550 First Officer climbed through an altitude constraint on a TEB Runway 24 SID when the autopilot failed to level.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Instructor aborted takeoff after aircraft had trouble climbing on takeoff and hearing stall horn without an excessive amount of pitch. After landing on the runway the aircraft skidded past the departure end to a stop in the grass. No occupant sustained injuries. The aircraft sustained only minor damage to the right wheel.

Callback: Pilot reported that density altitude may have been a factor for the poor performance in ground effect.  Pilot stated aircraft engine; weight and balance were all checked and found within limits.



Synopsis: C172 instructor reported an aborted takeoff resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BTV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing at BTV airport on rwy 33 I was given taxi clearance to taxi to customs via H;G;A;C cross runway 01. I taxied H and Golf but missed the turn onto Alpha and ended up on Runway 01 heading South. I immediately advised the GROUND controller and he said no problem continue to taxi up to and turn left on C which I complied with. I was distracted by completing some after landing tasks and was keeping an eye out for signs for the turn onto Alpha but missed it and ended up on the runway instead. Besides being an obvious pilot error the signage was not evident and there were no runway light markings showing I was approaching or crossing a runway. I was already given runway 01 crossing authority so the runway wasn't active but it may be wise to have more important signage at the G and runway 01 intersection to avoid future conflicts or inadvertent runway incursions like what happened here.




Synopsis: The pilot inadvertently entered a poorly marked but inactive runway at BTV.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Syst Pressure/Temp Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the takeoff roll at about 70 knots; the left Flight Control Low Pressure and Feel Differential lights illuminated. I elected to reject the takeoff. We cleared the runway and ran the QRH for the lights. I discovered that the Left Flight Control Guard switch was not fully down. I closed the guard; and system reset. We evaluated the brake cooling. No wait time required. We were still above the minimum takeoff fuel; and taxied back for takeoff. I did advise the passengers for the reason for the reject and also advised that the problem was fixed. The threat is that a guard switch; that might look fully down; could in fact jar loose on the takeoff roll.




Synopsis: Boeing 737-800 Captain reported executing a rejected takeoff due to a Low Pressure and Feel Differential lights becoming illuminated.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class E CUH
ATC / advisory: CTAF CUH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While practicing photographing a home from the end of the driveway a pickup passing by clipped the drone causing some damage to the corner of the windshield. Police were called. No persons were injured. Met with an aviation attorney to review our processes to ensure our practices will maintain safety and compliance in our operations. I am reporting this in case the repair cost is above $500.




Synopsis: A Drone pilot reported colliding with a vehicle.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Cabin fumes event] causing irritation to throat and lungs.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a fumes event which caused irritation to throat and lungs.