elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ramp had loaded dangerous goods (DG) in pit 6 with only 5 bags to secure it. I called zone and advised her the aircraft needed to return to gate so ramp [agents] could secure the DG. Ramp Lead called and said there was 15 bags in pit 6 to secure the DG and added 10 more bags to pit 6 to show 15 bags in pit 6 to secure the DG. The additional 10 bags caused a bag deviation alert. The plane landed in ZZZ1 had the station verify the number of bags in pit 6; per ZZZ1 there were no bags in pit 6 with the DG. This caused a FAA violation for securing DG as well as inaccurate weights being sent to the crew.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Agent reported dangerous goods incorrectly loaded without 15 bags in cargo pits to secure during transit. Error confirmed during destination off load.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
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: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were departing on the RUUDY RNAV SID from TEB. Our company recently bought an XLS+ and we are still learning our new avionics. The FMS was programmed and showed the SID accurately with all altitudes. After takeoff however; the FMS cycled from the first 'intercept' waypoint on the departure procedure to the second fix; WENTZ. The aircraft had not traveled the 2.3 miles; but only a few tenths. In attempting to get the aircraft towards the intercept fix; we exceeded the 250 KT limit below Class B Airspace; and also missed the 2;000 FT limitation at TASCA by approximately 200 FT; climbing through at roughly 1;800 FT.With a new aircraft there are usually some bugs to work out. In hindsight; I probably should have selected HDG and continued to a point that would have been 2.3 miles from the departure end of the runway and then continued to WENTZ. Doing so instead of trying to re-initialize the FMS to the proper 'intercept' waypoint would have eliminated the speed and altitude deviation at the next fix; as we would not then have been fixated on the route so much.I will be looking again at the departure procedure with the FMS at my next training event in the simulator.




Synopsis: A flight crew; new to their C560XLS+; failed to comply with the required track; altitudes; and speeds while flying the RUUDY RNAV SID from TEB.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received the PDC by CPDLC. There was a statement of revised segment; but nothing for a revision was noted. The load prompt was not on the second page of the clearance.At cruise over LAS; Center asked what route we were on as they were showing us going to DRK and we were headed to DBL; (the original routing). Dispatch sent us a message that ATC might route [us] south over IIU for south arrival.Checked the PDC log on the acars and a prompt showed up for LOAD. Loaded the route onto the second route pages. After confirming the route with ATC and dispatch we flew the revised route.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported not correctly loading a revised clearance received via CPDLC. The crew proceeded to takeoff and fly the old route until ATC intervened.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Release stated that maintenance had installed new FMS load for MD11. We did not notice that aircraft was loaded with wrong FMS load until 3 hours into flight; only that the database was current. Manually loaded points for arrival and approach in SBKP; uneventful.We missed that this aircraft was erroneously loaded with the 757 database for its FMS. Pilot handbook says to check current dates but says nothing about checking the specific load too (load is even 'X'ed out in the example diagram). Only in a small section in the FOM (Flight Operations Manual) does it mention to do this; and with over 20+ years together on this aircraft; we had never heard of this event ever happening; much less experienced it.1. Load the correct database for the specific aircraft.2. Continuing complaint that we should not have to look multiple places for standard procedures; too easy for something to be missed! The FULL and correct procedure should be in the pilot handbook.


Second narrative: If I recall correctly I was assigned to do a few nav data updates. A few [aircraft type removed] and an MD11 were assigned to me. I accidentally loaded the wrong software into the MD11. I did not see any indications or problems with the FMCs and I confirmed the newer dates of the upload were correct. Everything looked normal to me and I was not aware I had made a mistake.


Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer and Maintenance Technician reported the FMC was loaded with the wrong type of aircraft data. This mistake was not noticed until the aircraft was already in flight.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We took off with fuel balanced and approximately 8;300 pounds per tank. During climb out we were focused on weather deviation and communicating with the Flight Attendants to keep them seated. At level off at FL360 we noticed the yellow imbalance annunciation on the fuel panel; and noted the readings to be 5;600 pounds in the left tank (and dropping rapidly) and 7;100 pounds in the right tank (burning normally). We initiated an immediate turn around back to [departure airport] with Center; unsure if there was a leak or some other malfunction responsible for the huge imbalance. They also gave us a descent.We began running the Fuel Leak [Checklist]. When we reached the point of the checklist requiring confirming an engine fuel leak we noted the fuel level was no longer dropping as rapidly. We asked the Flight Attendants to inspect for signs of a leak and they reported they didn't see anything out of the ordinary. We elected to leave both engines running; as at that point we were being vectored on to final approach. We landed uneventfully; but noted as we cleared the runway it looked like the left side was dropping rapidly again. We shut down the #1 engine and asked the Airfield Ops vehicles on scene to inspect our engine for signs of a leak. They reported no evidence of a leak. We taxied back to the gate. Our Passengers deplaned normally; and Maintenance took the aircraft from us. They also said there were no immediate signs of a leak; but would have to troubleshoot to find the cause of the imbalance.




Synopsis: Boeing 737 First Officer reported fuel system issue and returned to the departure airport
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skynight 320
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the gear retraction was initiated. I heard a loud bang. I verified with the Tower and my nose gear mirror that the gear wasn't fully retracted. I tried several gear cycles to get the nose to lock to no avail. Considering my full fuel situation and crosswinds at [departure airport]; I decided to continue flight to [destination]. After assessing the runway and wind situation as well as emergency services; I decided to divert to [a more suitable airport]. Before landing I tried to cycle the gear several more times and put the aircraft in different attitudes as to force the gear down. I then followed emergency checklist for manual crank of gear. These efforts yielded no positive results. I informed the Approach Controller I was ready to land. I then instructed one of my passengers to move to the most aft seat and move as much baggage to the aft as possible. At a half mile final I informed the Tower that I was turning off all electrical and this was going to be my last radio call. Upon landing assured over the runway; I pulled back the mixture controls and throttles all the way closed to shut off the engines. I then used the elevator trim and yoke to make sure that I held the nose off as long as aerodynamically possible. After this was no longer possible the nose of the aircraft lowered and we slid to a stop. There were no injuries to me or any of the occupants.




Synopsis: C320 pilot reported his landing gear failed to fully retract after takeoff; and would not extend fully even after manual crank procedures were followed. Aircraft landed with partial gear and no injuries were reported.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I was working TYI sector during a high volume; weather event session. No D-side. Yorktown sector called me on the land line to coordinate a hand off for Aircraft X. They stated that the aircraft was verified level at FL360 and the pilot said all equipment was operational. It turns out that the flight was a co-related primary target in Class A airspace. This disqualifies the aircraft to operate in RVSM airspace. I did not verify with the pilot when they checked in assuming that the previous controller had taken the correct protocols. Not to mention they had an aircraft 1;000 feet above that I had just fed them.  Apparently this aircraft transitted through 4 or 5 ZDC sectors before it made it to TYI. I was told after the fact by a manager that the aircraft was not eligible for RVSM airspace. The aircraft transited through TYI as if it was RVSM capable. There were no conflicts while I was on position.  A better understanding of why an aircraft is not capable of RVSM is necessary. I was always under assumption that if the aircraft states they are capable; of RVSM than they are.  Clearly this is not the case.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller reported of an aircraft that transited in RVSM airspace; but was not qualified to be in that airspace. Controller reported that there was a loss of separation due to the aircraft not being RVSM equipped. Controller thought someone upstream should have verified if the aircraft was RVSM qualified.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Sometime after passing ZZZ we had a C HYD SYS PRESS EICAS caution. We ran the QRH and could not establish normal pressure to the Center HYD System. We noted there was full Center HYD quantity on the lower EICAS screen. The C HYD PRESS checklist required us to alternately extend the flaps and gear; so we decided [requesting priority handling] was appropriate. We contacted Flight Control and talked to our Dispatcher and Maintenance; informed them of our intention to [request priority handling]. Based on familiarity with ZZZ1 and their long runways; the Dispatcher concurred it was the best choice and had good weather; so I elected to land there. We got an ARTR (alternate route) for the new destination. When we started configuring the flaps; we had a LE ASSYM EICAS. We reviewed the LE ASSYM checklist; and rechecked everything and noted that the LE slats were definitely in their proper positions. We contacted Flight Control again and talked to Maintenance to discuss options and see if we were missing something. Based on all available information we had; we determined the aircraft slats were in the takeoff position. We also noted the LE ASSYM EICAS message vanished on its own. The Alternate Flap and Gear Extension operated normally. ZZZ1 had emergency services standing by for us. On short final (approximately 200ft) we had another odd thing happen - the PLI (Pitch Limit Indicator) started to move erratically and jump up and down and the stick shaker briefly activated. The aircraft was stable and on flaps 20 ref speed of 140 (I added 5 more knots for a VApp (approach speed) of 145) with very light winds. The PLI erratic movement made no sense; but I increased power and lowered the nose a bit; and we touched down uneventfully. Emergency services checked the aircraft out once we pulled off the runway and they noted no hydraulic leaks or other fluids coming out of the aircraft. We were light enough that only moderate braking was used. We took plenty of time to review checklists and make sure we didn't miss anything. I cannot explain the spurious PLI movement or the transient LE ASSYM EICAS message.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported multiple EICAS messages resulting in a diversion and a precautionary landing.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival; I noticed that there [were] no agents available. After waiting a while I contacted dispatch and we confirmed the min fuel for the flight was 2;600lbs (2;582 lbs on the release). The ramp said that we could have a takeoff weight of 3;050 lbs based on our assumed fuel burn and landing weight at our destination. Since there was no [gate] agent I called Dispatch and told them to contact the fueler and tell them to fuel to 3;300 lbs; this includes 250 lbs for taxi since there were delays and it was the only runway we could use due to the winds at. We departed after a longer than usual taxi waiting for traffic. The flight went normally until I noticed that our fuel gauges seemed to be reading the same amount as when we confirmed our fuel load prior to engine start. We looked for a check list but there was none so we contacted dispatch and confirmed our fuel load and requested to talk with maintenance while they confirmed our fuel order with International Fuel. I discussed the issue with maintenance and it seemed like the gauges were actually fine. That meant only one thing could have happened; we had been overfueled by about 1;000 lbs. Dispatch confirmed that the fuel vendor said they fueled the aircraft to 4;300 lbs; not 3;300 lbs. We asked Dispatch if they wanted us to return or burn off fuel and land at our destination. They said that [dispatch] wanted us to continue. We descended to 4;000 feet to hold and burn fuel faster over the VOR. We talked to the Chief Pilot and he agreed that we should land at our destination. We burned fuel until we were at our planned landing weight and landed without incident. A maintenance inspection was performed the next morning and no defects were found due to the overweight operation.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported being over fueled for a flight.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was TRACON Controller In Charge (CIC) at the time of the event. Aircraft X was issued the GNATS 7 Departure from MFR Tower and departed on the departure procedure. The aircraft climbed in accordance with the procedure and turned to heading 250 after reaching 1;800 feet. The aircraft reached 1;800 feet. 6 NM prior to MEF NDB. The procedure says to fly heading 250 until interception of MEF NDB bearing 272. Because the aircraft had not yet reached MEF NDB when it initiated the prescribed turn at 1;800 feet it was on a course to never join MEF NDB bearing 272 on course to GNATS. The aircraft came in dangerously close proximity terrain even with quick recognition of the controller of the situation. Without good radar; good weather; and a vigilant controller this easily could have been a disaster. The controller ensured the aircraft had terrain in sight and helped get the aircraft away from terrain. The GNATS 7 Departure needs to immediately be suspended. In its current iteration it is very dangerous to slow aircraft. It is designed for fast flying aircraft which will fly past MEF NDB where a turn to 250 heading will actually intercept the outbound bearing to GNATS. If we were using long range radar with IFR conditions an aircraft accident would likely have been the result. A likely solution to the procedure would be on departure climb direct MEF NDB and to depart MEF NDB on a 353 heading.  Reaching 1;800 feet after MEF NDB turn left heading 250 to join MEF NDB bearing 272 to GNATS; rest of procedure unchanged.




Synopsis: EUG TRACON CIC reported an aircraft flying a published SID correctly resulted in the aircraft flying below minimum terrain altitude requirements.