elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First flight back after COVID reopening; local flight in the pattern with a private-rated student. I believe the Controller instructed us to turn right and enter the Runway XX upwind from the XX left downwind. We were then instructed to return to the downwind; but there was confusion as to whether that meant the Runway YY or Runway XX left downwind. I asked for clarification on frequency; but the transmission was blocked. On a left base to Runway YY; we were cleared to land Runway YY.Upon reflection; I am not sure if we were intended to enter the left pattern for Runway YY or Runway XX.With all three frequencies (local; ground; and clearance delivery) combined on Tower; there was some radio confusion. Additionally; aircraft were being directed to both XX and YY due to practice approaches being conducted to YY.I believe these confusing situational factors adversely affect safety; particularly due to the staffing/currency challenges as a result of COVID-19.




Synopsis: Pilot reported radio communication confusion as to which runway they had been cleared to land.
Date: 201402
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] was on the jetbridge to receive an inbound flight. The aircraft continued to roll past the A319 designated stop mark; continuing to the wide body airctaft stop mark. Marshaller had no idea he had brought the aircraft 20 FT or so farther up the line. I yelled out to him and pointed out the correct mark he should have stopped the aircraft at. Aircraft was then pushed back to the correct spot and the jet bridge was then docked. The number one engine was about 2 FT from going under the jet bridge and the left wing came very close to striking the neighboring jet bridge behind us.




Synopsis: Gate agent describes a near collision with the jet bridge by an A319 being marshalled in; but to the wrong stop mark.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Holding short of runway with parking brake set. When cleared for takeoff; I released the parking brake but the airplane would not move. The brakes wouldn't release. We did some troubleshooting in the cockpit and after numerous failed attempts to disengage the brakes we called Dispatch and [Maintenance]. [Maintenance] had us duplicate what we had already attempted to disengage the brakes but had no success. We notified ATC of our problem when it first happened and after calling [Maintenance] we informed ATC that we would be shutting down and waiting for a mechanic to come to the airplane. When the mechanic came; he was also unable to disengage the brakes and he told us that he would have to put the airplane on jacks in order to find the problem. We were in contact with station operations and ATC as to the next step; which was to bring air stairs and busses to deplane the passengers on the taxiway and return them to the terminal. The police and fire came to the plane then the busses and air stairs showed up. The passengers deplaned and the police and fire escorted them to the busses.Given the unusual circumstances of this event; I feel that all parties involved did a great job. We provided all the necessary food; water and information to the passengers during this event. We were able to secure another airplane and left a couple hours late.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported the parking brake would not release after it was set while holding short of the runway for takeoff. Passengers and crew were removed and Maintenance took over the aircraft.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying along the beach and in a descent from 2;000 feet MSL to 1;000 feet MSL along a barrier island on the coast. As I went to increase the power to level off; the throttle would not go above 40 percent power. Being a 'geared' engine; I did not have enough thrust to maintain level flight. I continued descent to where I could land on a desolate part of the beach. The beach was populated in one area; but sparsely populated in another area. I was not in compliance with FAR's concerning remaining clear of populated area as I flew over the populated portion to get to the unpopulated portion. As I reduced power to idle to land; the throttle moved freely; so I re-attempted to add power and was successful; never having to land on the beach. We believe the occupier of the back seat got his watch stuck in the throttle.




Synopsis: An experimental aircraft engine throttle was blocked at low power setting by a passenger's watch; unbeknown to the pilot who prepared to land on a beach after passing low over a populated area but at the last minute the throttle block was removed and they climbed.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MGW.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E CKB
ATC / advisory: TRACON CKB
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During our descent; I gave a PIREP about the tops being at 8;000 and picking up Light Rime Ice. ATC issued us a clearance to 5;000. Upon reaching 5;000 we were still picking up Light to Moderate Rime Ice on the Boots and Prop Spinner. We noted that we were approximately 15 miles from the field and requested lower to attempt to get below the icing level. ATC issued us a descent to 4;500; which we accepted. Upon reaching 4;500 MSL; we leveled off for about 15 seconds and then received a; 'Terrain; Terrain; Pull-up' warning from the GPWS. The Captain (pilot flying) turned off the autopilot and immediately began a climb. The warning went away within a few seconds and we leveled off at 5;200 FT. We immediately notified ATC and advised them that we received a GPWS Pull Up Warning. ATC responded; 'Well the MEA is 4;500 right there'. I responded that we were advising him that we received the warning and that we would be remaining at 5;000 until we were closer to the airport. They issued us a new clearance to remain at 5;000. The flight continued to MGW without any further incident. Upon landing in MGW; the Captain called Dispatch and notified them of the occurrence.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew experiences a GPWS terrain warning at 4;500 FT east of MGW during vectors for approach. The crew climbed and advised ATC who responded that the MVA in that area is 4;500 FT.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While being vectored for the ILS 17R; ATC requested that we slow to 170 KTS; at which point I selected flaps 1; and shortly thereafter we received a EICAS 'LE Flap Asymmetry' alert. We requested vectors; ran the appropriate checklist; declared an emergency; requested CFR; and notified company. Once this was completed we requested vectors for the ILS 17R; we landed; and taxied to the gate without further event.




Synopsis: B767-300 crew received a leading edge flap asymmetry alert during approach. Flight landed in emergency condition.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CPS.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beech F90
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was holding short of Runway 12R at CPS trying to receive an IFR ATC clearance to POF. The frequency used was first 123.7 and then 121.8; which was the final frequency that I was able to contact the Controller on. Received a clearance in the usual format with a void time and at the end of the clearance the Controller said to 'follow the standard departure procedure.' My interpretation through the controller's language meant that 'follow the standard departure procedure' meant a SID was being assigned. Being cautious of this wording added to the end of my clearance; I asked him what SID of the seven listed for my airport as an option is he exactly implying. The Controller was being rather hostile with me over the radio and saying everything but trying to clarify what he meant by 'follow the standard departure procedure.' I listed the names of the different SID's out of my airport and asking him which one he would like me to execute. He tried to imply that I did not even have the appropriate charts on board that listed his procedure and I told him that information was incorrect and that I need to know what the name of the departure was. His Supervisor came on the radio thereafter and clarified matters quickly. The procedure being requested is called an 'Obstacle Departure Procedure' not a SID. Which was climb on heading 122 degrees to 1;000 feet before turning left. I explained that I was not going to depart without fully understanding my clearance. Clearly there was a miscommunication between the initial Controller and myself.




Synopsis: IFR departure from CPS experienced communication confusion with ATC on departure procedure phraseology; a SID or obstacle clearance procedures and/or both.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: FBO Personnel; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: FBO Personnel; Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My crew chief assigned me to another carrier's aircraft.I went on my way to the gate along with my co-worker to relieve a mechanic from the line. The mechanic was talking to Maintenance Control (MC) when we showed up. I went to check what was going on and found out that there was a write up about refuel panel power INOP. We were on stand-by just in case he needed help. The mechanic was speaking to MC the whole time we were troubleshooting. The mechanic was instructing me and my partner what MC wanted us to do. He told us to bag and tie the cannon plug from center tank as he was on the phone with MC. The mechanic and my co-worker stayed on that airplane meanwhile I perform the Pre Departure Check (PDC) on the arriving flight.


Second narrative: As the airplane rolled into the gate I walked out and proceeded to do Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS) Pre Departure Check (PDC) procedure. As I made my way to the flight deck the fueler reported no power going to the refueling panel. I rebooted aircraft power and still no power to refueling panel. I noticed in the flight deck that 2 breakers were out ('FUEL PANEL IND' and 'FUEL PANEL CONT'). I Notified Maintenance Control (MC) and was advised to reset said circuit breakers at which point the FUEL PANEL IND popped again but now there was power at the refuel panel. Was told by MC that we could defer the indication at the panel but had to troubleshoot which indication was not working to use the correct MEL procedure. I was in the flight deck on the phone with MC; another mechanic was at the nose of the aircraft watching me and signaling to another mechanic which indicators to disconnect. After trouble shooting found out that the Center Refueling Indication was INOP at which point MC was sending us the documents for the MEL Procedure. We completed the MEL procedure with the assistance of MC. The log book was signed by myself and reviewed by MC prior to releasing the logbook to the pilots.


Synopsis: Two air carrier mechanics reported that while attempting to refuel the aircraft they discovered there was no power to the fueling panel.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Lately this has become an issue. We have been 'blocking' parachute jump airspace over two airports. A few months ago; TRACON started to insist that each and every time a jump aircraft climbed into our airspace; they needed to point him out. These aircraft are VFR and there is no phraseology for a VFR point out. I always just say 'ok' or 'I see him' or 'approved'. This parachute jump activity is under a north departure track so there is frequently vectors to IFR aircraft required to keep these aircraft away.Conversely; we 'block' parachute jump airspace on a daily basis with a different TRACON in two places. The duality of this situation bothers me. Someone is right and someone is wrong; so which is it? Can we put a code into the computer; and write an altitude over an airport and block for parachute jump operations or can we NOT; in which case every time they call with a pointout on an aircraft which we have no data block for; we are required to start a radar track; or put a strip in the bay. Whichever way we decide; it should be the same for both TRACONs.The TRACON which insists that every single Parajump aircraft be pointed out; ran two Parajump aircraft through my airspace. Both aircraft went to 14;500 feet well inside my airspace; without coordination; through a busy departure track.




Synopsis: ZAU Center Controller reported parachute jump aircraft routinely enter their airspace without any coordination from the TRACON.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MEM
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were facing east on Taxiway X. There was aircraft Z facing us at Y. He was cleared to cross Runway XX at Taxiway Y and we were cleared to cross Runway XX at Taxiway X. There was aircraft Y behind aircraft Z. He made his left turn to cross at Taxiway Y. We aren't sure of his taxi instructions. I was trying to get a little speed to make it over the uphill of crossing Runway XX so I wouldn't have to use excessive power. As I got about 30 degrees into my right turn I realized aircraft Y had turned right onto Runway XX. We were not expecting him to be directly in front of us. We slammed on the brakes and my FO queried Ground Control. It was then that he realized our radio was on the guard frequency and we may not have heard a call from ground. Based on Ground's response to our surprise of aircraft Y in front of us I felt we had not missed anything on ground frequency. We came as close as I would ever want to come to having a taxi incident.We may have missed a call to give way to aircraft Y when our radio was on guard instead of Ground frequency.Since we were in such close proximity to aircraft Y; it might have been better to delay one of our taxi clearances or at least tell one of us to give way in our initial taxi clearance. I'm not sure Ground was aware of our situation.


Second narrative: As the FO; I queried Ground Control as to why the aircraft Y was taxiing in front of us and their response was; 'Sorry about that'. On a side note; I did mention to them that we wanted to make sure we didn't miss any previous information about aircraft Y; but they did not add any more information.


Synopsis: Wide body air carrier flight crew reported an abrupt stop was necessary to avoid a collision on the ramp with another wide body aircraft.