elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff from DAL; Fort Worth Center cleared us direct to PGS on the TYSSN 5 Arrival. We were originally filed on the TYSSN 5.IGM. I manually entered PGS at the top of LEGS Page 1. I then had to delete the old points from the IGM transition. When completed; I did not notice that the CEJAY and KADDY points did not load. Later on; I failed to do the arrival briefing; which would have captured this error. When I looked at the LEGS Page; I saw what I expected to see; not what was actually there. During the arrival; LA Center told us we were north of course (because we were going PGS direct to TYSSN instead of PGS.CEJAY.KADDY.TYSSN). LA Center cleared us direct to KADDY; and we had no problem making the 12;000 feet and 250 knots KADDY restriction. Incidentally; before we figured out the missing waypoints error; we thought our north-of-course error was due to an intermittent GPS-L error message that began near the White Sands Missile Range. We assumed GPS jamming was in effect and had caused the navigation error. But we later discovered the error on the LEGS Page.  Expectation bias led me to being complacent about a required descent briefing. Had I done the briefing completely; the error would have been easily captured.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported a course deviation caused by an error in loading the STAR into the FMS.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ferry flight from ZZZ - ZZZ1. IAW (In Accordance With) SOP; all pre-departure ferry checklist items were completed prior to closing the cabin door. Gate Agent checked in with the cockpit crew and I told him that we were 'ready to go' and that he was cleared to close the door and pull the jetway. After the cabin door was closed I had doors 1L and 1R armed by the Deadheading Pilot; who is a current and qualified 737 First Officer. Doors were properly armed and the red 'ribbon' was pinned across the windows as per SOP. We had a few more items to complete in the cockpit before calling for pushback. Two minutes later our Deadheading Pilot entered the cockpit and told us that the Gate Agent opened the [forward entry] door [1L] and the slide was deployed but NOT inflated. I went back to verify the situation and once I did; I took a number of steps to first insure safety and second; to take care of the maintenance issue. Not knowing the state of the slide - whether or not it was going to inflate - I worked with Station Operations to ensure no unnecessary personnel were to approach the area. An ELB (Electronic Log Book) write up was entered and I talked directly to [Maintenance] to see if there was anything I needed to do prior to egressing the aircraft. At that point; Contract Maintenance arrived and I felt comfortable leaving the aircraft. To provide egress we had air-stairs brought to door 1R. Flight was subsequently canceled due to unavailable maintenance.This situation would not have occurred had the Gate Agent followed standard operating procedures. He did not look through the window to verify the red ribbon nor had he knocked on the window to get the attention of a crew member prior to opening the door. When I talked to him afterwards to ask why he needed to open the door he stated that he wanted to know if we needed more fuel. That was the fourth time during pre-departure that I was asked that question. Apparently there was a lot of confusion about the fuel load and he was asked by Station Operations to confirm with us so; in his haste; opened up the cabin door to ask me directly.




Synopsis: Captain reported that the Gate Agent opened the forward entry door and inadvertently deployed the slide; though it did not inflate.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: It was brought to my attention by my Base Manager; that I installed the wrong part number for an R/H MLG piston axle change on [the] aircraft. I received the call from the Lead Mechanic for the strut around the morning within the first couple hours of the shift with my riding partner. We were told that the aircraft that needed an R/H MLG strut piston axle change due to a scratch in the chrome that was out of limits.When we arrived at the hangar; there were 2 other mechanics from the night shift that had already started taking the strut apart and they agreed to stay to help until XA00. All the parts had already been ordered by the previous shift to do the job and were already at the aircraft. We gathered all the parts and inventoried them before we started. We matched everything up to all the IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog) and AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) task. Both myself and my partner were both experienced with MLG strut seal changes; but it was our first experience the piston axle change. We assembled the strut and serviced it. We finished up with the hands on maintenance about XD00; everything was done except the operations checks which we turned over to the 2nd shift mechanics. We completed the clean-up and updated all the paperwork up to the operations check task.I was told the Records Department caught the error during data entry. I believe that the cause could be partly due to inexperience with the task at hand; being it was the first time that myself and the other mechanics had had a piston axle change. The IPC was also bit cluttered with many part numbers to match correct effective parts together and that could be why I made this error.After this error was caught; the aircraft was removed from service and the strut piston was changed to the correct effective part. At the time; I was unaware of the Reference Instruction Letter and Service Information Letter for the struts effectivity made it easier to see. I think there should be a page generated with a hyper link to the Reference Instruction Letter #XXXX Rev B and Service Information Letter: SIL 02121-XX-XX XX; so that this mistake is not repeated in the future.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Technician reported installing wrong main landing gear piston and axle assembly on aircraft.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight crew is concerned when they get an aircraft that has sat for a few days the switches are out of place.  Examples: hyd flight control switches; alternate flap switch; etc.I joined a call for flight Operations and discussed this matter; I requested they send me the reports; so we can address with other reports; also asked if they can get pictures or an accurate description on which switch was out of order.Safety is aware they have a pre-flight checklist; but they wanted to make sure maintenance operations [are] aware.This is a hazard report to start a possible trend.




Synopsis: Technician reported flight crews are concerned that when they receive an aircraft that has sat for a few days some switches are in the wrong position.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UNV.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
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: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: FO (First Officer) was flying.  I was pilot monitoring. Coming from the east NY center descended us to 4100 ft. in daytime VFR conditions. Airport and runway were in sight and was cleared for the visual 24. Pilot flying set 3100 which is FAF for the ILS 24. He then maneuvered the aircraft for a left base for runway 24 outside of WOREX which is about a 7 mile final to allow for a stable approach and avoid the hill to the east. Once clear of the hill he started a descent to 3100 ft. As we reached approximately 3400 ft. MSL we received a terrain alert from the EGPWS. Both the pilot flying and pilot monitoring had discussed the terrain prior to descending and both had it in sight since it was daytime VMC conditions. After the alert the pilot flying disengaged the autopilot; added thrust and stopped descent and even climbed and immediately after doing this the alert went away and the crew was able to make a normal and stable approach. Due to rate of descent and proximity to the terrain the system alerted the crew. It was daytime VMC conditions and the crew was able to maintain terrain clearance and the alert quickly extinguished. Crew could have either had a slower descent rate or waited to start down a bit later; or we could have asked to be vectored onto the ILS.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a GPWS Warning during the approach in VMC conditions.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had a Right Generator MEL that required the APU to run for the entire flight. In cruise we received an APU FUEL VALVE message on the EICAS. The QRH directed that the APU to be shutoff and not restarted. If we shut down the APU then we are put into an emergency situation since we would be operating on a single generator. The APU was running normally at 100% RPM and steady EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature). We elected to continue while monitoring the APU since it was providing needed electrical power. We were monitoring possible divert fields as we went in case the APU did actually fail. The APU ran steady until on the decent through FL200 when it failed. We [advised ATC] due to single generator operation and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: On a B757-200 a failed APU coupled with a deferred right engine generator caused to operate in a single generator mode.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Hail; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ1
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Moderate turbulence at 43;000 feet; right engine flame out; requested priority handling immediately at ZZZ.




Synopsis: A fractional company pilot reported right engine failure. The pilot descended; restarted the engine; and continued to their destination instead of landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I programmed a] direct to a fix [leg] which replaced [our previous fix to a fix leg] in the FMS. [The] plane flew between our last fix and the new fix-not direct from our [present position] to the 'direct to' fix. We have multiple issues with the Honeywell Epic [FMS]; lots of gotchas.




Synopsis: A C680 flight crew suffered a track deviation when their attempt to program 'direct to' a cleared fix failed to produce the desired response.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Public Safety / Pursuit (UAS)
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS); Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a DJI Mavic Pro Drone in the ZZZ area. I was using my iPhone 12 Max Pro as a viewing device plugged into the controller with a USB Cable. I attempted to use AIRMAP and ALOFT to obtain an LAANC authorization; however neither service was responsive. I conducted the flight and stayed below 400 feet in that portion of airspace. My maximum altitude was 185 feet AGL. I did not fly beyond VLOS (Visual Line of Sight). I stayed within 400 feet horizontally from the controller. I conducted two (2) flights to obtain pictures.

Callback: Reporter indicated they were unable to obtain LAANC authorization because they had no cellular service at the flying location.



Synopsis: Part 107 pilot was unable to reach a LAANC provider. Flight was completed without LAANC authorization.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB; TRACON P50
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On arrival into PHX; 6 miles in trail of an A321. Started getting violent rapid side loading; banking; and minor airspeed fluctuations. Normally; we go in and then out of wake turbulence before we have a chance to react; but this was sustained. I describe it as violent but not obscene; for example the bank changes; side loading and airspeed fluctuations were uncontrollable; but limited to +/-7 degrees of bank; and +/- 4 knots on the airspeed. No way to tell side loading. As we reentered it for the third time; we told ATC we needed a half mile offset. ATC complied; and then asked us if we could rejoin the arrival. When they asked; we hit another bit of wake turbulence and said no. They gave us vectors until final; where we were 4 and a half miles in trail again. We flew one dot high and then shifted to a normal glideslope and landed uneventfully. Captain remarked that he had not felt wake turbulence like that in years and felt like we were following a 757.Close trail vectoring; and zero crosswind component. Winds were calm at altitude.It seems that spacing is going to a mileage restriction only; instead of a timing and distance based one. However; [with] airliners flying at 210-250 KIAS on the arrival; 6 miles can be as little as 1 minute; depending on tailwinds. Recommend going back to a combination of time and distance based restrictions for in trail spacing.

Callback: Reporter recommended returning to time and distance based in-trail techniques instead of distance only.



Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of an A321 on arrival into PHX.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft Y was issued the instructions to taxi to 17L via L and ED; hold short of the 17R approach on ED.  Pilot read back correctly the hold short instructions.  The pilot then blew past the hold short line causing a go-around on short final.  A week prior working Ground Control I had the exact same situation.  I did fill out an additional report for this occurrence as well.  This continues to be a problem at DEN Tower.  The pilots are confused on where to hold short.  When we taxi them north on L or M there are 17R approach signs and lines to hold short.  This however is not where we expect them to hold short.  So half of them stop on M or L; but we really want them to make the turn on ED and then there is another 17R approach sign there. This is an extremely hot spot when we have arrivals to 17R. They are not crossing a runway; but if they cross the approach sign we are required to send the aircraft around on short final.  I believe in the 7 years I have been here I have sent over 10 aircraft around on short final because of this problem. Times that by 40 controllers and we have a pretty big issue here.  So to make it clear we issue; 'Runway 17L taxi via (L or M); ED hold short Runway 17R approach.'   On either taxi route there are 2 17R approach lines to hold short of causing confusion.We need new signs and markings to designate where we want them to actually hold short of.  Either give it another name or color so it sticks out to the pilots.  They are confused on what we want them to do.  So they either stop at the wrong place and question it; or they end up going through it and causing an unsafe go-around at a very short final.




Synopsis: DEN Tower Controller reports of numerous runway incursions that have happened at the airport due to poor runway signs.  This causes go-arounds if there is an aircraft on final.