elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received an early am short call assignment. Assigned paring ZZZ. 2 gate returns were made for maintenance and FO timing out on second gate return as well. Aircraft swap was made to continue flight with new FO. After realizing how tired I was and that I was paired up with another FO who hadn't flown in nearly the same amount of time as me (9 months); and after a self-perceived degradation in my performance from the extended maintenance delays; I removed myself from the operation due to safety concerns. I feel as though if I had been flying more I could have powered through this event by relying on recent 'habit patterns or 'muscle Memory' from currency of a normal schedule. That; with the self-awareness of fatigue setting in led me to believe that the safe thing to do was to remove myself from the flight. I have flown aircraft for decades. I know when to remove myself from flight duty. I believe that this extended duty period with disrupted sleep and a degraded sense of performance would have been in poor judgement for me to continue."




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported multiple ground delays and lack of proper sleep resulted in physical degradation/fatigue and decided to remove himself from the flight.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FCA.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was the Captain from ZZZ to FCA. Upon arrival into FCA everything was normal. We taxied into the gate and stopped where the marshaller told me to stop. We shut down and as I was doing my post-flight walk-around I noticed that we were not stopped on a stop line and we were short of the first stop line by 15 to 20 feet. I asked the ramper why we stopped short and they told me that they stop us short because if they need to use the ramp its extremely difficult to do so if we park on the designated stop line.If what the ramper claims is true and that it really is difficult to utilize the ramp at our designated stop line then we should explore painting a new stop line. We are lucky in FCA that our lead in line is probably close to twice the length of the airplane so there should be sufficient room to accommodate for a new stop line that is further back from the current stop lines. My biggest concern with not stopping on a painted stop line is we are effectively in 'no mans land'. Measurements for the circle of safety and the aircraft envelope are based on the airplane being stopped on a designated stop line. If we start making up stopping spots then where do we draw the line? Today it might be 15 feet; tomorrow it might be 40 or 50. If an A320 or 737 taxi's behind us thinking there's enough room and hits the tail of our airplane because we weren't stopped in the appropriate spot; that's on us. I feel like we can totally remedy this situation and move the stop line back to where it makes operations easier for the ramp crew.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that during parking the aircraft was stopped many feet before the stop line so ramp crew could use the ramp area. Captain recommended that the position of stop line be changed to ensure safe operations.
Date: 201508
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In cruise; Dispatch sent this message. 'Operations just called; revised Take Off Weight (TOW) 140.1. +900 LBS. Better late than never I guess.' We adjusted Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) accordingly. Although nothing bad happened; this could create a greater problem since we took off with the wrong data. An engine failure or abort at or near V1 could be unsuccessful as a result.Preventative Measures: Some type of ground operations check and balance to verify weights.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information]


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported they received final weights with a 900 pound increase in cruise flight.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Passenger
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot is a recent recipient of a tail wheel endorsement. Pilot was in airport traffic pattern practicing take-offs and landings; (stop and go) with another pilot whom was in the aft seat. I was the pilot flying. Winds were light and variable mostly from the right side of the runway. On second landing; the tailwheel was on the ground with the stick full aft; when pilot transitioned to the brakes at approximately 5-8 MPH. Airplane veered a little to the right; pilot applied too much left rudder and aircraft rolled off the runway on the left side and came to a stop in the grass. There was no damage to the aircraft of the airport runway environment. Pilot needs more flight instruction particularly with reference to ground handling and sensitive hydraulic heel brakes.


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


Synopsis: PA-18 flight crew reported a loss of control and runway excursion due to lack of experience and misuse of the heel brakes.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 9
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ1
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Today I received a call from [department regarding] mishap investigation.  He told me that maintenance found the LH nose gear's inner bearing failed and damaged the axle.  He said the Flight data shows normal landing for the last ten cycles.  We flew the aircraft on this flight; from ZZZ to ZZZ1.  From the time we took control of the aircraft; pre-flight through parking at ZZZ1 we had no visual or mechanical indication that there was any problem with the nose gear. Taxiing; takeoff and landing were all performed normally and no known stress put onto any of the landing gear during our control of the aircraft.


Second narrative: The left nose wheel axle was discovered bent and the bearing had failed after the aircraft was parked at the gate. No abnormal appearances or indications were noted during any portion of the walk around or any phase of flight including landing and taxi in. The flight was uneventful and both the takeoff and landings were normal during the flight.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported being informed that maintenance had discovered a wheel bearing on the left hand nose wheel assembly had failed and damaged the axle. Flight crew reported no difficulties or unusual sounds during normal operation.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Before and during an emergency descent from icing condition and during minor approved deviations for storm cells; PFD was showing slowing airspeed. OAT was -12C. PFD continued to show slower; then stalling airspeed. Speed protection audible callout began. Checked engine and icing; but neither appeared to be a problem. There was no apparent icing on wings. I asked ATC for lower to get below the freezing point and was cleared in steps to 13;000 FT. I clicked off the autopilot for descent to have a better feel for airplane handling. On descent; I clicked on the pitot heat; which shortly thereafter brought back correct airspeed indications. Continued on course and assigned altitude.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot making an emergency descent out of icing conditions noted decreasing airspeed indications followed by an airspeed audible warning. Pilot turned on pitot heat which rectified the airspeed indication problem.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHS.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C CHS
ATC / advisory: Tower CHS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After checking for weather conditions and NOTAMs at the four airports on my route of flight I departed DYB airport (Summerville; SC) for a trip that would take us around the CHS (Charleston) Class C airspace. None of the airports reported a TFR affecting them at the time I departed my home. When I arrived at the airport; I preflight the aircraft and checked the FBO weather station computer for any last minute weather; etc. However; the weather computer was turned off in the unmanned FBO. I flew my hour long flight outside Charleston's airspace only to find upon landing that I had violated a presidential TFR. I should have called FSS; prior to departing for my flight. Better notification of TFR's; perhaps within AWOS/ATIS; which I did monitor for each airport I flew in the vicinity of would have been helpful in preventing this mistake. Also; unlike something as obvious as an arena or sporting event; a small; unpopulated island is not a place you would necessarily think of for such a TFR; so public knowledge of such a place and its use would also be helpful. I'm new to the area; and have done most of my flying in Central Florida; where the Class B airspace; as well as the ever present Kennedy Space Center/ Cape Canaveral Missile Range is a well known restricted area. Charleston could really benefit from some more open disclosure of its unique airspace issues; but the General Aviation community is very small here; and getting the word out is not easy. I often find that I'm the only one flying at my local airport.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of violating a Presidential TFR in an area where he is not that familiar.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Pushed off of gate X - ramp told us to taxi to spot X.  Taxing out of alley from [gate] X - there are ZERO taxi lines.  Paint has been removed.  I was going to taxi out to spot X then turn on taxi line there; but there was a plane stopped waiting to enter spot X.  I turned where the taxi lines used to be toward spot A.  Passing by spot Y; there was a plane coming in spot B blocking me from A.  There were ZERO taxi lines to be able to get around aircraft at spot B that started taxing. I told ramp that there were no taxi lines for me to get around other jet.  He asked me if I had my charts - which I did. He said it was construction.  Nothing in Jeppesen showed any 'alternate' taxi procedures.  There was a dashed yellow-black line to the North of standard taxi lines; but it went no where.  Later I could not find any mention of what a dashed yellow-black line meant in the AIM.  This was the first time I have taxied from X concourse to spot Z.CLT ramp just wants to move metal.  Having to switch to 3 different frequencies to get from one side of the ramp to the other is distracting.  Having ramp ask me if I have my charts or that due to construction I can taxi where I want is an accident waiting to happen.  There are ZERO lines to follow.  For us at night; unfamiliar - WITH our current charts out giving ZERO guidance and getting no help from ramp was was very uncomfortable. We stopped several times to make sure we had wing clearance with other aircraft taxiing.Publish and mark standard taxi lines during construction.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that due to construction at CLT Airport there was a lack of standard taxi lines or alternate taxi procedures.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to Airport ZZZ; winds calm; temp -01; altimeter 30.41; landing weight 302;800 pounds; the FMS generated speed with 35 flaps was 135 knots. The tab data speed from QRH was also 135 knots. At that speed; the AOA (Angle Of Attack) was outside of the approach range at 8.8 instead of a more appropriate value of 7.5. Actual pitch attitude was 6.0 degrees instead of a more appropriate value of 4.5 to 5.0 degrees. I commented to the First Officer (FO) that the aircraft felt mushy as if flying in slow flight. The FO said he could tell that just by watching the ineffectiveness of the controls. In order to get the proper pitch attitude we had to fly the aircraft 7 knots fast by manually entering 142 in the approach speed. Something is wrong with aircraft that causes the AOA and pitch to be high when flying the proper IAS. This tells me that there is possibly a problem with the pitot static system that is giving the wrong IAS or the BOW (Basic Operating Weight) listed for this aircraft is wrong. The sign off for this aircraft involved reloading the last FMS database. I am concerned that this is passing the same problem to another unsuspecting crew. If the FMS database had been to blame; then the FMS speeds would not have matched the tab data speeds. Also; if the FMS had a corrupted load; shouldn't maintenance have gotten an error report when it was first loaded? If an FMS loading device was somehow able to enter a corrupted load without giving an error; was that same loading device used on any other aircraft? Maintenance has already signed this off once with a solution that could not possibly solve the real problem. It seems as though this is happening again.Can we pull the FOQA (Flight Operations Quality Assurance) data for the flights after the FMS was reloaded to see if the AOA and pitch was still high when flying the proper speeds on approach? Otherwise; I would re-weigh the aircraft; check the pitot static system; and test fly this aircraft. We do not need another landing incident!




Synopsis: Large Transport Captain reported possible issue with the aircraft pitot/static system or the FMS data load that generates a speed too slow for configuration.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: On departure on the SLEEK 2 RNAV Departure approximately at 7;000 feet turning toward KIDNG intersection lost GPS-L and then GPS-R momentarily.  Not sure what had caused it (maybe 5G).  Denver Departure was asking several questions to other aircraft about the loss of GPS.  After a few seconds GPS was functioning appropriately without any issues on the flight to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a loss of GPS signal; possibly attributed to 5G interference.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
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: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On SID's; when assigned climb via clearances; and when the top altitude is higher than the flies altitude; it is expected to climb to the restriction; top of SID. This particular SID says in the top altitude box; FL230 is the top. Upon further reading; it should say FL230 or filed altitude; whichever is lower; as the SID says in the textual description. Perhaps this is an issue with Jeppesen charts.  Once past the 10;000 foot hold down at MUGBE; the Captain set FL230 as the expected clearance. Just before passing FL200; Captain queried ATC to confirm FL230; but received a response approaching FL220. A clearance was given to descend FL200; and we complied. It was then that we reviewed the textual part of the chart and noticed our error. The expectation that other SID's do not include this exception is biggest cause. Also; not detailed re-reading lengthy textual descriptions on SID's every single use; contributes. ATC clearances can include 'climb via; except maintain...'. This clearance would easily eliminate this oversight and airports like DEN; should have knowledge of the departures to aid in this. Also; Jeppesen charts should include these little nuances in the top altitude box on the SID; since this isn't true of all SID's.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported exceeding clearance altitude.