elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: CTAF SMO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a cross country flight with a student to LGB and we were proceeding to the LAX special flight rules corridor. We were level at 3500 ft. northwest of the Santa Monica VOR flying eastbound to intercept the SMO 132 radial after flight following was canceled by SoCal Approach. As we were flying eastbound a few minutes later; my student reported seeing a plane on the left. He stated that the plane was converging from the left and that it turned westbound to avoid our aircraft. I did not see the aircraft until it was behind us; but my student reported that it was close to us before it turned westbound.


Second narrative: Climbing up to Los Angeles Special Flight Rules; the conditions were VFR and sun glare in the climb. Position was west bound and coming up on the Pacific Palisades. In the level out; a Cessna appeared in the windshield. Student was flying; and I immediately grabbed the controls and took evasive action by diving and banking to the right. Other aircraft took no evasive action. After the near miss; we continued on with joining the Special Flight Rules. The other aircraft in question was noticed to be joining the Special Flight Rules as well. On Special Flight Rules; I continued to make calls on the common traffic frequency and I made a call out directly to the other aircraft once he made it on the frequency. Once on I inquired if the other aircraft saw us; he replied 'yes; I see you off my 3 o'clock right now'. I replied back 'no; I mean did you see me about a minute ago at your 12 o'clock'.


Synopsis: Two flight instructors; in separate aircraft; reported a NMAC while operating on the LAX Special Flight Rules VFR transition route.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Everything [was] normal up to takeoff roll; after calling 80 KTS; [we had a] E1 THRUST REVERSE DISAGREE [EICAS]  (90 KTS) caution followed by Takeoff Configuration Warning alarm. I called the annunciation and the Captain called for the abort. I immediately let Tower know and told the passengers to remain seated. Once off the active; the Captain called for the aborted Takeoff Checklist completed. The Captain then called Maintenance while I explained the situation to the passengers and Flight Attendant. We worked with Operations/Dispatch for the gate return and Contract Maintenance took it from there. The largest threat was it being very early morning and an aborted takeoff was the last thing expected. All parties handled the situation according to company policy/checklists and the passengers were informed every step of the way.


Second narrative: It was dark. The runway was wet. It was very early in the morning.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted E1 THRUST REVERSE DISAGREE at about 90 KTS during takeoff so the Captain rejected the takeoff; completed the checklist and returned to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While parking; a pick-up truck encroached on the safety zone of AC (Aircraft) parking area.  AC was stopped just as turn towards gate had commenced.  AC angle to alley way taxi line was negligible.  Once truck had cleared; proceeded to gate at idle thrust.


Second narrative: Attempting to park at gate. A ground service vehicle encroached on the safe zone. Aircraft was stopped just as turn into gate had commenced. Aircraft angle to alley taxi line was negligible. Once the vehicle was moved clear; taxi was continued to gate at idle thrust. Continue stressing the importance of not parking ground service vehicles in the safe zones.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported a conflict with a ground service vehicle as they were turning into their gate.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Type of Event/Situation : Fume Event[No narrative provided. Apparently no flight occurred; aircraft turned over to maintenance].




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported fume event with no narrative submitted.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower FLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Text below is a copy of the PDC clearance I received for a recent flight from FLL. Looking at the clearance it follows our filed route; and then on the next line it lists the Zappa 2 Departure; followed by a climb VIA SID. The normal departure for our filled route is the Thunder2. I discussed this with the First Officer and we agreed it would be worth a call to Clearance Delivery and ask for a full route clearance. The radio clearance was to fly the Thunder2 departure. They were unable to explain why the PDC gave us the Zappa2. Maybe the FAA is not really ready for this climb via stuff if they are going to give PDC clearances like this one.FLIGHT X FLL PDC Aircraft X XPNDR 8888 Type aircraft PXX00 280 KFLL THNDR2 THNDR LEV./. KDFW ZAPPA 2 DEPARTURE CLIMB VIA SID DEPARTURE CONTROL FREQUENCY l! CTC RAMP CTL 129.875 FOR PUSH.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of confusion with PDC clearance; contacts ATC and they are not able to answer the question he asks.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I set up the MCDU and briefed the First Officer (FO) it would be a Flaps 4 departure. Being his leg; I had him give me the rest of the Takeoff brief. We ran the 'before start to the line checklist;' boarded; closed; pushed; and ran the 'before start below the line checklist.' On this check; FO called Flaps 2 required; selected; and indicated. Being that was what was selected; I repeated back '2 verified.' This was the 1st chance to catch that flaps 4 needed to be selected.I had ran the ACARS for flaps 4 data and inputted those takeoff speeds into the MCDU; but Flaps 2 were still selected at this point and is what was selected for takeoff in the MCDU. On the taxi as part of my Taxi flow; is the second chance I had to catch the mistake of Flaps 2 selected instead of Flaps 4. Next we ran the taxi check; and then being number 1 for takeoff; FO started on his pre-takeoff checks. It was here we got a Takeoff config ok. I held short of the runway; looked down at my notes and saw my reminder that we needed to be Flaps 4. I told FO; and he selected Flaps 4. We were then cleared for Takeoff.We ran the before takeoff check and lined up on the runway. I gave FO the controls. As he pushed the Thrust levers forward; we got a 'No Take Off - Flaps.' We immediately throttled back and contacted the tower telling them we needed to exit the runway to check something. We were basically given two right turns to taxi back to [the] runway. We figured out we had the right Flap setting selected; the right ACARS speeds for Flaps 4 inputted; but had not set Flaps 4 in the MCDU. We corrected our mistake; ran all appropriate checklists again; received clearance for takeoff; and continued on our way.Complacency; lack of CRM; and overall missing attention to detail led to this incident. A checklist is useless if you do not actually check what you are supposed to. Moving forward; anytime something (ie Flaps; data; etc) needs to be verified- I will take the time to point and look right at that of which needs to be verified and checked. I will encourage my coworkers to do the same and that if something doesn't look right- speak up.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported that they rejected takeoff due to a misconfigured flap position.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During loading I asked the loaders from [company name] 'is there any dry ice or other Hazmat?'. They said 'No; none.' At this point I instructed them on how I wanted the weight loaded in the plane and turned the bulk of my attention to completing paperwork and weight/balance. The flight was conducted normally and without incident; however when the aircraft was being unloaded I overhead one of the unloaders say 'that's a lot of dry ice for one box!'. This is the third time in 2 weeks that [company name] has tried to put undeclared Hazmat on my aircraft. I was able to spot it the other two times but missed it this time. I have tried to politely and gently impress upon the loaders the importance of alerting pilots to dangerous goods being loaded on the planes but it still seems like a 50/50 gamble especially at the outstations on whether or not they will comply with reporting requirements.[This was recognized] During the offload when a loader commented on the dry ice.I think the loaders and sort centers at the outstations just don't care if the Hazmat gets reported or not. All they care about is getting the cargo out quickly. I have explained the importance to them and then one or two days later had the same conversation with the same people when I spotted more undocumented Hazmat. Not all the undocumented Hazmat has been dry ice. That is however by far the most common thing to fly under their radar and is the only thing to make it past me so far. At this rate though with how busy the loading process is and becoming darker on the ramp; it is only a matter of time before other hazardous materials are missed.I once again told the ramp manager that it is imperative that pilots are alerted to all Hazmat. I then told my supervisor about the event and am filling a [Safety Report].I think someone who has a managerial title needs to remind [Company name] of the possible fines that could be imposed on both companies for not following proper Hazmat reporting procedures because they do not seem to care about what the pilots are telling them.




Synopsis: Captain reported the air transport of undeclared Hazmat due to loading crew procedural errors. Reporter further stated Hazmat errors are a repeated occurrence at this location.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Take-off initiated with left cargo door opened. Initially; left pilot door was suspected to have unlocked during the take-off roll and/or ANC (Active Noise Cancellation) headset malfunctioning (in the past; ANC headset failure resulted in the same noise and vibration produced by the cargo door open). For that reason; realization about the left door unlatched status was achieved just after having lifted-off.Strong glare and a take-off facing the sun; plus habit to the more conspicuous annunciator panel of the legacy 208 version versus the G1000 CAS system made me miss the 'door unlatched' CAS message.A return to land was requested and a pattern performed normally. After landing and the runway vacated; the door was closed with no damage found. A runway inspection revealed that a spray bottle of window cleaner and a pair of headsets had been sucked out from the cargo door pocket and fallen in the pavement at the beginning of the runway.




Synopsis: C208 Captain reported the cargo door was not closed prior to departure. On take off; the cargo door opened causing an air turn back to secure the door.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After exiting 27R; Tower told us to enter at Spot 9 and contact the ramp. I referenced my 10-9 chart to verify my location and maintain my taxi situational awareness. My visual on the signage and subsequent reference to 10-9 didn't [match]. Specifically; signage indicated K-3; but K-3 isn't denoted on 10-9. Additionally; a comparison between 10-9 and 10-9B indicates that the charts show two different taxiway configurations in the area of K and K3; M; and L.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a disparity between the Jeppesen 10-9; 10-9B; and the actual signage in the area of k; K-3; M; and L Taxiways from Runway 27R to Spot 9 at PHL.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I] went out to airport to load aircraft/check plane for an early departure the next morning. Found no power when Master was turned on. Decided to hand prop airplane to start and charge. The aircraft was positioned on an icy ramp. The brakes did not hold after the aircraft started and the wheel chocks were ineffective. The aircraft traveled several feet and impacted a building post and window. I think in the future; it would help greatly on under used or limited hours of service type airports; if a rope or chain with hooks were available in a standard location outside the facility with which to tie off an aircraft.




Synopsis: A pilot hand propped a C172RG engine because of a dead battery but even with the brakes set on an icy ramp the aircraft moved forward and hit a building post and window.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUS.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SUS
ATC / advisory: Tower SUS
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was cleared for visual approach 08R by Saint Louis approach. Switched over to SUS tower and was cleared for visual approach 08R & cleared to land 08R. About 2.5 miles out on the visual; Tower alerted us to a low altitude alert. Our altimeter was set to current field elevation and we were flying a stabilized visual approach. Landed without further incidence.




Synopsis: SUS Tower issued a low altitude alert for an aircraft on a visual approach to 08R.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Ground Control; and our Supervisor was training on Local 1. I had an aircraft call me clear of Runway 28L at Taxiway G1 (Aircraft X). I immediately noticed he was not clear of Runway 28L and appeared his tail was partially over [Runway] 28L. I alerted Local Control as Aircraft Y was departing Runway 28L and airborne as they passed Aircraft X. I then taxied the aircraft to transient ramp. The trainee on LC1 did not observe the issue until I pointed out and had an aircraft on takeoff roll and airborne before noticing the event. The Supervisor was involved and notified of the event when it happened. I estimate 10/15ft lateral separation; and 50ft (at the most) vertical separation when the event occurred. I recommend recurrent training for the trainee involved and/or emphasis on scan especially when issuing departure/landing clearances. I believe the lack of scan and tower cab awareness led to the event happening. This trainee is near their max hours; recommend an evaluation to see whether or not they can truly make it at ZZZ.




Synopsis: Ground Controller reported a runway incursion due to developmental on Local not scanning runway to ensure arrival was clear of runway.