elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
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: Workload; Other / Unknown; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC changed the arrival and issued a speed up followed by a slow down speed restriction and also a descent clearance somewhere in there. The PF inadvertently deleted the crossing altitude restriction at ZZZZZ. He selected VERT SPEED to continue the descent and I failed to ensure we changed the MCP altitude to prevent going below 17;000 feet. Subsequently; I verbally intervened just prior to descending below 17;000 feet; but didn't do so effectively. We descended to 16;750 feet before recovering to 17;000 feet.Contributing factors included: Day one of UOE [Upgrade Operating Experience].  PF has been on an AM schedule. PM didn't sleep well the night prior. PM lack of recent experience in FO seat.I made the assumption that the PF was aware of the restriction and would meet it. When I noticed that the MCP altitude window was incorrect; I verbally intervened but did so ineffectively. I should have done a better job of bringing it to his attention and physically intervened as necessary.


Second narrative: We were descending on the ZZZZZ1 STAR into ZZZ. I was the PF on my first day of UOE [Upgrade Operating Experience]. During the descent; ATC changed the arrival to the ZZZZZ STAR and to descend via the STAR. Then we were assigned to cross ZZZZZ at 17;000 feet; and instructed to start the descent prior to our VNAV profile descent point. I selected Vertical Speed mode on the MCP and verbalized and verified that mode. I did not reset the MCP altitude from the lowest published altitude to 17;000 feet for the change in mode. As we approached 17;000 feet at ZZZZZ; the PM said; 'There's 17;000 feet.' As I realized that we weren't leveling off; I spun the Vert Speed back into a climb and reset the altitude window to 17;000 feet. The lowest altimeter reading I saw was 16;720 feet; and we corrected back to 17;000 feet. The PM told ATC that we were at ZZZZZ at 16;700 feet; and ATC directed us to descend via the ZZZZZ. There were no other issues with this flight or event.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported numerous changes to the arrival resulted in a crossing restriction altitude overshoot.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DTS.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Traffic was departing and arriving using both runway directions at DTS; runway 14/32. I elected to depart 14 as the wind was a direct crosswind. I called on unicom 'departing runway 14 to the West' and entered the 'runway in use; 14'. After I began my takeoff roll; a Cessna citation at the opposite end of the runway (who decided to depart 32) decided to enter the runway. I aborted the takeoff and stopped on the runway. The citation advised he would taxi to the nearest intersection and exit the runway. I then began; again; my takeoff roll and departed. The citation pilot then said 'he was released by approach'. I informed him that I was VFR; not IFR. The citation pilot was obviously confused as to the relationship between atc; destination class D; and the implications of far 93. It was obvious the citation crew assumed that atc somehow 'controlled' the runway and traffic pattern at DTS. The crew was not monitoring the unicom until they decided to depart; immediately after talking to atc for their IFR release. It is absolutely essential to monitor DTS unicom while trying to deal with approach on an IFR release. At the minimum; DTS should have an RCO. It is very difficult to communicate with approach to obtain an IFR release as position on the airport affects transmit/receive capability with approach. DTS desperately needs a tower this has gone on entirely too long.




Synopsis: SA227 Captain on the takeoff roll at DTS detects a Citation entering the runway for an opposite direction takeoff. The reporter rejects his takeoff; then continues when the Citation clears the runway. The Citation Captain had been 'released' by ATC but did not monitor the CTAF while waiting.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Additional safety concerns regarding refusal to operate Aircraft X:The deferral of Slat Flap Controller Computer (SFCC) #2 and SFCC Chanel #2 Results in degraded functionality of slats and flaps; (Slow operation).SFCC1 and related protections from Wing Tip Brakes (WTBS) is only remaining operative system with no redundancy.We also have another flight control related deferral with an inoperative rudder travel limiter.Any other flight control computer(s) becoming inoperative during flight would further degrade your ability to control the aircraft i.e.; Elevator and Aileron Computers (ELACs); Secondary Computers (SECs); Flight Augmentation Computers (FACs) etc. all of which must be operational for dispatch due to the seriousness of the deferral.Both my First Officer and I were in agreement with the unacceptably reduced safety margins of this aircraft.Please include the above safety concerns with my originally filed report. I was very tired after a long day; and didn't have time to write a full and proper report which I intended to do.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain refused an aircraft due to a deferred Slat Flap Controller Computer; citing concerns that flight control protections would be reduced if other computers were to fail in flight.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; Pilot Monitoring noticed a smell in the flight deck.  Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring described the smell as a musty metallic smell.  Upon contact with ZZZ Departure; LAV SMOKE master warning was presented on EICAS. Pilot Monitoring ran QRH. The crew established contact with flight attendant who advised that the cabin smelled like burning plastic and no smoke was observed in the lavatory. After discussion between Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring; it was agreed the safest course of action was to turn to ZZZ in a timely manner. The crew performed the normal checklist as well as the overweight landing QRH procedure after determining our approximate landing weight. The airplane landed safely and was visually inspected by the airport fire command.  No abnormalities were noted and the aircraft taxied back to the gate; followed by fire command as a precaution.  Passengers deplaned normally at the gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a fume event during initial climb accompanied by a LAV SMOKE EICAS message. Flight crew executed a safe air return.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I am an advanced student and was practicing landings to prepare for my checkride. I had a stabilized approach to Runway XX at ZZZ. Immediately upon landing the wind shifted and airplane departed runway to the left striking a runway light which damaged the bottom of the fuel tank and left side of stabilator. Winds were at direction 100 at 10 kts gusting to 15. I had gone around once but I could have gone around again to try to correct further for the crosswind before landing.




Synopsis: A student pilot reported a wind shift while landing caused them to lose control of the aircraft and they ran off the runway damaging the aircraft and a runway light.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After blocking out I was beginning to load the takeoff performance into the FMS when I saw the load report remarks showing motor wheelchair lithium [powered] and motor wheelchair non-spillable.  I went back to the cargo page and noticed there was no cargo weight included; only bags. I asked the ramp if they had sent numbers including the wheelchair weight and they said they did not include any weight for a motorized wheelchair. They then had to reopen the cargo bin to look at the wheelchair and realized it was not properly tagged; and only had the gate claim tag. They had to call a ramp manager to help complete the proper documents. Confused by why; the remark looked as if there were actually 2 wheelchairs checked as cargo.  I verbally confirmed there was actually only one motorized wheelchair with a non-spillable battery.  After about 20 minutes ramp advised it was all straightened out and sent updated cargo load report numbers with 70 pounds added for the wheelchair weight. Ramp needs to verify the accuracy of their load report prior to sending their numbers. Also paperwork for the wheelchair should have been verified before putting it into the cargo bin. The load remarks appearing to have 2 different wheelchairs is also confusing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported improperly documented Lithium Ion battery powered wheelchair during preflight. Captain summoned the ramp manager who corrected both improper gate check procedures and cargo weight errors.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On taxi out; we observed the LE Flap Transit light illuminate with different slat lights come on; number 8 was the most frequent. I called Dispatch/Maintenance Control; who instructed me to extend them all the way out and retract them; which I did. We had all good indications; so Maintenance said we were good to go. On takeoff roll at 80 knots; we got a Takeoff Warning horn and a LE Flaps Transit light. I rejected the takeoff and returned to the gate after the First Officer calculated the brake cooling data; which was said we were good to return to the gate. Other considerations in the decision were thunderstorms all the way to our destination.The Mechanic said there was water in the control box that was causing a short; which lead to the malfunction.


Second narrative: As we were rolling down the runway on takeoff; at 79-80 knots; we got a Takeoff Warning horn and a LE Flap Transit light. The Captain; PF; aborted the takeoff by 85 knots or so. The RTO didn't engage and we had no other issues on the abort. I think I may have missed the extended and deployed call though. We informed Tower of the abort and exited the runway. We then ran the brake cooling and didn't require any cooling time. After that; we taxied in to the gate and had Maintenance meet the aircraft with no other issues.Maintenance found water pooling under the electrical box due to a clogged drain line and said the box was probably shorting out.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff when they received a leading edge flap warning light at about 80 knots.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other final approach
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon initial contact with Approach we were told to expect the visual or RNAV Runway XXR.  At approximately mid field right downwind we were instructed by Approach Control to contact Tower.  Upon contact with Tower we were cleared to land on Runway XXR.  We continued our descent and approach.   A little while later; Tower instructed us to return to approach.  Approach Control advised us of a possible pilot deviation as we were not cleared for an approach.  We were given a base turn and asked if the airport was in sight.  We were then cleared for a visual approach and again instructed to contact the Tower.  In hindsight; the instruction to contact the Tower came at an unusual time; mid field left downwind.  But when cleared to land by the Tower; I thought nothing more of it.  It was the instruction to return to approach and the subsequent notification of a potential pilot deviation that causes me to question the initial instruction.Pay closer attention when instructions are given in a non-normal order/environment.


Second narrative: Approach Control switched us to Tower. Checking in with Tower we were cleared to land [Runway] XXR. So we descended prior to ZZZZZ (on the arrival is 210 knots at 11;000 feet.) After Tower cleared us to land he sent us back to Approach frequency where we were told we needed to get a phone number for a possible violation. After we received landing clearance we did descend prior to ZZZZZ to approximately 10;000 feet. With COVID procedures in effect maybe we should have questioned the Tower about the frequency change; but with so many towers at 1/2 staff and/or closed I do not know what all the different operating procedures are from airport to airport. Being cleared to land on downwind maybe unusual but not unheard of.Closer monitoring of flight number on the radio but I am absolutely sure I heard him switch our flight over to Tower. I really didn't have any clue something was wrong until the Controller told us of possible violation.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they were informed by ATC of a possible altitude deviation.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CAE.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground CAE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] landed at Columbia Airport on an IFR flight plan. Ceiling and visibility [were] unlimited. [I] landed Runway 23. Winds were calm. Landing on the flight was uneventful. Approximately 20 minutes later received IFR clearance for return trip while taxiing out. Taxiing instructions were cleared to Runway 29; taxi Yankee Alpha; clear to cross Runway 23. [I] entered the holding bay area which is several hundred feet wide. [I] crossed the ILS critical line. The Runway 29 hold short line is several hundred feet long and I could not see the runway from that position. At the same time; the taxiway diagram on my iPad expanded showing I was in a hot spot. I inadvertently crossed the runway hold short line by approximately 25 FT. The hold short line is several hundred feet from the end of Runway 29. (The runway was not visible from this position.) There was no other traffic. Ground Control called me and told me to make a 180 and get behind the hold short line; which I was in the process of doing. [I] cleared for takeoff several minutes later. Return trip uneventful. The hot spot area is very confusing. Area contains hold short line for Runway 23; ILS critical lines for Runway 29 and hold short line for Runway 29. Suggestion: have a sign in the area stating you are entering a hot spot and that the hold short markings are confusing. Use extra caution.




Synopsis: A single engine pilot crossed the CAE Runway 29 Hold Short Line because he did not recognize it as a hold short line because it was so far from the runway.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-42 Cheyenne III/IIIA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was climbing to 8;000 FT; leaving 6;300 FT when CPC-IT issued a climb to 7;000 FT to Aircraft Y as well as turning them to a 350 heading. When Aircraft Y was at 5;800 FT; I instructed the CPC-IT to stop them at 6;000 FT as Aircraft X had leveled his climb rate. By the time the CPC-IT issued the 6;000 FT; Aircraft Y was above it and had to descend back down and separation was lost. Instead of instructing the CPC-IT to stop Aircraft Y; I should have just stopped them myself.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller providing OJT described a loss of separation when instructing the Developmental to make a transmission in lieu of amending the instruction directly to the aircraft.