elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight from JFK to the northeast; clearance Kennedy 1 Departure Breezy Point Climb RBV J230 BYRDD... After executing the departure and on radar vectors; ATC cleared us to the BYRDD Intersection. Shortly thereafter ATC asked if we were proceeding directly to BYRDD. We responded yes. ATC responded 'not the BYRDD I want you to go to.' A heading was issued and ATC asked what we showed for the BYRDD Intersection. The intersection had been entered in the FMS as 'BYRRD' rather than 'BYRDD'. We were shortly re-cleared directly to BYRDD. It would seem from the conversation that this wasn't the first time an aircraft had headed to the incorrect BYRDD Intersection. The remainder of the flight was uneventful.

Callback: The Reporter stated that when BYRRD was entered in the GNX ZLS FMC he saw the route displayed as south but did not see the distance. After ATC reissued the clearance the crew realized the error but not till after the flight were they able to see that not only was it South; but it was 8116 NM South. This particular aircraft's FMC has a world wide database; which in itself is somewhat unusual; but it did not issue an alert; such as insufficient fuel; which other FMS equipment would.



Synopsis: A corporate aircraft crew departed on the JFK Kennedy 1 Breeze Point Departure on a routing which included BYRDD Intersection. After being cleared direct BYRDD; BYRRD was entered in the FMS which caused ATC to alert them about a track deviation.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxi out for takeoff on Runway 24L. On Tower frequency received clearance to cross 24R to hold short of approach of 24L. After crossing 24R and approximately 100 yards short of hold line for 24L we were told to stop. Tower Controller then asked landing traffic on 24L if he was comfortable landing as an aircraft was inside the approach zone for 24L. The aircraft on a visual approach indicated that it was not a problem and landed. We then heard other aircraft on the frequency receiving a similar clearance to cross 24R and the Controller then emphasized and added hold short of the '24L approach sign.' We did not recall hearing this clearance referring to the sign nor do we recall seeing a sign of this nature. No other comment was made and we were next for takeoff and departed without further incident. We reviewed all taxi charts prior to taxi out and after incident and could not find any reference to the 'Approach Sign.'




Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew failed to detect the CYYZ Runway '24L Approach' sign and were advised by ATC after they crossed the hold line that they had a runway incursion.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU Electrical
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ECAM Gen Fault Number 2 after start. [We] followed ECAM procedure for fault. Problem was not solved; contacted Maintenance Control. [We] returned to the gate per Maintenance Control for MEL; since not deferrable by crew. MEL 24-20-01B required running the APU for duration of the flight. Departure was normal. During cruise FL320; ECAM APU Fault appeared. [We] ran the ECAM per company procedures. Tried to restart the APU; started fine; APU generator would not accept generator load; then ECAM APU Fault illuminated. [We] started a descent for turbulence; cool starter motor and possible diversion. Level at FL300 repeat the previous steps with no success. Per APU starter limitation; tired one last start of the APU at FL280; no success. Communicated a plan with ATC; First Officer; A Flight Attendant and Dispatch for a diversion since aircraft was down to one generator. [We] advised the passengers of diversion and precautionary landing at a diversion airport. Performed the Overweight Landing QRH procedures; configured the aircraft early to burn fuel. [We] landed at 151;800 LBS at less than 300 FPM; with no issues. [We] made a logbook entry for overweight landing.MEL issued to aircraft; APU failure in flight; aircraft had overnight check before this event.




Synopsis: An A320 engine generator faulted after start and was MEL'ed. At cruise the APU faulted and would not restart so crew diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Normal flight. After my F/O (First Officer) came back up from his post flight [walk around] he said he observed bags loaded above the line in the forward cargo compartment and touching the smoke detector. Also additional bags were loaded in the aft cargo without our knowledge or listed on [paperwork]. 13 bags total in aft not listed.


Second narrative: After we landed I did my walk around. As I passed the forward cargo I looked into it and noticed that the baggage compartment was completely full with bags up against the ceiling and against the fire detectors. I also saw the rampers unloading bags from the aft baggage compartment; which the [departure airport] rampers neglected to tell us that there were even bags back there. I stood there and counted 14 bags in the aft compartment when our [paperwork] said there were 0 bags back there. We could have asked ramp if any bags were in the back when we noticed there was a large amount of bags in the front.


Synopsis: E170 flight crew reported noticing post-flight that the baggage load and distribution was not properly completed or accurately reported before departure.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the RAZRR 4 Arrival into SJC. While approaching the SHIKK intersection; NorCal [Approach] told us to expect the RNAV 12R. The First Officer went to the Departure/Arrival pages on the FMC and selected the correct approach. I was on the LEGS page to make sure it was loaded properly. The First Officer asked me if what he loaded looked ok. I responded 'No; it is not correct'; as there was a discontinuity after SHIKK. The First Officer looked at the moving map display and saw magenta lines showing what looked like the correct routing. He executed the route even though I said it was incorrect. The autopilot reached SHIKK almost instantaneously and proceeded to fly straight ahead. I told the First Officer to engage Heading Select and start a turn while I put in the intersection TRCOT. The First Officer still did not realize that we had flown through SHIKK; so I started the aircraft in the correct direction and reloaded TRCOT. About that time; ATC asked if we were still on the STAR. I told ATC that we had flown through SHIKK and [we were] correcting. ATC told us to proceed direct GGUGL. The First Officer was too quick to execute the changes even though he was made aware that they were incorrect.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into SJC when the FO executed an FMS change even after the Captain advised it was not correct.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Crew reported at XA:45 that they had a slow to accelerate spool up on #2 engine. Also on descent they noticed an unusual vibration. Within minutes thereafter I inspected the #2 Engine for damaged blades N1 and Exhaust. I noticed looking through the slim gap between the thrust reverser halves and the core of the engine bottom 6 o'clock position; there was a plug with a long shaft laying at the rear. I alerted the crew to hold boarding at about XA:52 because I would need to open the thrust reverser halves to inspect further. Originally I began looking at the borescope plugs but all plugs were installed and safetied. I noticed looking at the 5th stage check valve; that it was missing a plug as pictured. I inserted the plug and it was a match for the missing through bolt. I had another mechanic assisting me at the time; he took pictures and sent to Maintenance Control to alert of the finding and request support for operational checks once bolt was reinstalled. Maintenance Control notified me that a FADEC Motoring check done through the MCDU would be satisfactory. There was no difficulty reinstalling the through bolt and from the picture I have seen; it appears the bolt did not align with the flapper due to its failure and misalignment. I did not remove the valve for reinstallation of this through bolt; and in hindsight I should have done this as a precaution to inspect the valve for damage. I also would have been able to confirm that the butterfly indeed was aligned with the through bolt. Lesson learned! Bolt was installed; engines closed and secured and motoring check was satisfactory. Notified Maintenance Control approximately XC:00 work was complete and aircraft returned to service at XC:15 approximately.




Synopsis: A319 Maintenance Technician reported finding a check valve was missing a through bolt on an engine that was slow to spool.
Date: 201512
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While parking the aircraft under the guidance of the parking system; not one but two vehicles transgressed the operational safety zone. The parking system was fully operational and indicating the aircraft position properly. The proper aircraft type and flight number were displayed. The distance thermometer was green and no obstacles were observed as I proceeded into the safety zone. After crossing the beginning of the lead-in line; a truck drove through the safety zone in front of the aircraft between the aircraft and the parking display. It was not until the vehicle had passed clear of the safety zone that the parking system displayed 'STOP'. After the vehicle had cleared safety zone; the 'STOP' signal was removed from view and the normal displays were once again visible. I proceeded with parking the aircraft. Immediately upon aircraft movement; another vehicle; a small baggage cart tug; crossed the safety zone between aircraft and the display unit. Once again; the display unit did not show a 'STOP' signal until after the vehicle had cleared the safety zone. The parking system's slow response makes this system impractical and unsafe. The response to a moving obstacle in the safe zone; should be immediate as to avoid and extremely unsafe situation. The slow response of the parking system could easily lead to an accident with possible injury to personnel and certain aircraft damage.




Synopsis: The A319 Captain reported that the parking system is slow to respond conflicting ground traffic in the Safety Zone.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBA.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent; Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBA
Second aircraft: Learjet 60
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Trainee; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for the RNAV Approach when Aircraft Y checked in for the Visual Approach. The trainee decided to make Aircraft Y number one and take Aircraft X off their approach. When he did this he gave Aircraft X a right turn; northbound toward higher terrain and the aircraft was at 2500 ft. The aircraft had to ask him if he wanted her to maintain 2500 ft; in which he agreed. I immediately advised him not to turn the aircraft northbound and to continue her turn back southbound. When he gave the aircraft a turn it was to a 100 heading and the aircraft replied with; 'Was that for me'? He did not hear her say that and at this point was entering a 3400 ft MVA (Minimum vectoring Altitude).I took over and proceeded to turn her immediately to a heading of 180 for higher terrain and attained from the pilot that they could maintain their own terrain clearance; to which they answered in the affirmative. This turn to the north has many consequences. One of which the trainee witnessed today. The aircraft can lose radio contact; not hear you; take a late or slow turn or fly into clouds or into terrain. I advised the trainee of several of the issues that can arise from turning aircraft northbound into a higher MVA. More education and experience in radar will help him learn.


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


Synopsis: SBA TRACON Controller reported ATC trainee vectored an aircraft off the approach into an area with a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-3
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On final; passing over the numbers on XXR [and] preparing to touch down probably no more than 10 ft. above the runway; I experienced a wind shear which I think was a dust devil as I noticed swirling dust off my left wing. I lost all lift and hit the runway and subsequently veered off to the left-hand side. I was unable to control the direction of my aircraft.




Synopsis: Vans RV-3 Pilot reported encountering a dust devil on landing resulting in runway excursion.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was just after Tower closed for the night; we had previously received a clearance from Tower. By the time our passengers were boarded it was after the Tower closed; so we proceeded to taxi to Runway X for departure since that is what the Tower had been using. On the taxi out we contacted Approach to get our IFR release. When we got our release the Second in Command didn't read back our void time to approach so I instructed him that was the correct to procedure to do so. I had started taxing on to runway looking for traffic looking both directions for traffic as doing so. Once on the runway I realized another aircraft was landing on the other runway. In the short time of us monitoring CTAF we had not heard a traffic call from the other aircraft and we had not made a reporting call yet. The lights of the airplane must of had blended into the background of the city lights. I was unable to vacate the runway before the other aircraft did a go around from the opposite end of the runway.




Synopsis: BE-40 Captain reported a Critical ground conflict after an inadvertent runway incursion resulting in a opposite direction landing aircraft to executed a go-around. Airport Tower had recently closed and flight crew had only monitored CTAF for a short time and had not heard any position radio reports or made any position reports.