elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: METAR changed requiring an alternate on several short flights. During this time I checked to ensure which flights were able to receive messages provided by their out times. After some time spent completing other flight releases; I provided the updated Dispatch Report with an alternate to a flight. Shortly thereafter I was informed that a fellow Dispatcher had received a message from that flight indicating that they had performed a rejected takeoff after receiving an ACARS message; apparently from me. This message was intended for their inbound leg. The primary cause is that I sent the crew the updated ACARS message while they were apparently in sterile; causing the RTO (Rejected Take-Off). Solutions to prevent the transmission of noncritical ACARS messages when in sterile cockpit need to be provided.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a flight crew aborted their takeoff when they received an ACARS message with an updated dispatch release.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
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 Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an early evening flight to IAH we were descending via the DRLLR 5 RNAV arrival being set up and briefed for the RNAV Y 26R with our altitude set to 6000'. When checking on with the approach controller we were told to expect the runway 26L transition. We selected the new runway in the FMS but failed to reset our altitude selector to 7;000' at that time. As we neared ZOEEE Drag Required appeared on the FMS scratchpad and the Captain said; 'Careful not to be too hot at ZOEEE'. I deployed the speed brakes and slowed us to 210kts and checked the FMA and we were still in VNAV PATH. Shortly after passing ZOEEE; I noticed the FMA showed VNAV SPEED as we were leveling at 6;000' and I no longer showed SKLER as a waypoint on the screen. I then looked more closely at the DRLLR 5 chart and noticed the point we'd briefed as the lowest altitude on the arrival had (Runway 26R) beside it and thought we should've stopped at 7;000'. I brought it to the attention of the captain who then queried ATC. The ATC response was that we were ok and to now descend to 5;000'. We started the descent and shortly after were told by what sounded like a different voice on the radio to maintain 6;000'. We reversed the approximately 200' descent and returned to 6000'.The rest of the approach and landing were uneventful and the flight ended safely at the destination. I believe we should've stopped at 7;000' but am unsure since the controller didn't have a problem with us being at 6;000' so I listed the event as a possible altitude deviation.




Synopsis: B-737 pilot reported neglecting to change the descent altitude after receiving a change in assigned runway from ATC late in the Arrival procedure.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
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 LAS
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Immediately after a B737 was cleared for takeoff from 19L; we were cleared to line up and wait and to keep the B737 in sight. Just as the B737 lifted off the runway; we were cleared for takeoff. By the time we began our takeoff roll; the B737 was about 2.5 miles from our location. We rotated past where the B737 had rotated and our climb profile was beneath theirs. At about 300 to 500 feet AGL we encountered wake turbulence which rolled the aircraft both left and right about 15 to 20 degrees. I advised the tower of our encounter as he handed us off to departure control.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B737 on takeoff from LAS.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CAK.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground CAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After an extended on-gate delay we pushed. The ramp and taxiways were covered in ice and snow. Braking action reported as poor on these surfaces. The tug was not able to push us back as far as normal before it lost traction however it was far enough back to turn out with wing walkers.I checked braking action before we started the turn and it was poor; but acceptable. I felt the nose wheel steering was nil to poor (we later found out the steering was physically disconnected). Careful combination of differential thrust and braking was used to turn out and taxi the aircraft to the de-ice pad and runway.The only surface on the airport that was visible through the snow was the runway (which had the best traction). Once we were on the runway; we experienced severe nose wheel shimmy and returned to the gate. On a visual inspection of the nose wheel we found the torque link disconnected.Both the First Officer and I made the assumption that the icy ramp and taxiway were the reason for steering difficulty. We did not have any indication or message that the steering was inoperative (it was in fact working; just not connected to the tires). The First Officer did not find any issue with the torque link on the walk around. It was in fact extremely obvious once we returned to the gate. If the torque link was disconnected prior to push; I would be quite certain that the First Officer or ground crew would notice the large linkage bar hanging down. I suspect the linkage actually disconnected once I engaged the nose wheel steering system.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported departing the gate with the nose wheel steering torque link disconnected.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Fractional
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were vectored and cleared for a visual approach into ZZZ. We were instructed to track the centerline of the runway towards the airport. About two miles from the runway the Tower Controller advised us that a departing Citation was at 8;200 ft. going in the opposite direction. Just seconds later our TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) commanded us to descend because we too were at 8;200 ft. on the visual approach. The Citation passed off our left wingtip about one mile. I didn't have the Citation in sight until after the TCAS called out the RA (Resolution Advisory). I wished the controller would have allowed us to track slightly right of the runway so we could have more lateral separation from aircraft departing ZZZ.This is unfortunately what happens when aircraft land and take-off in opposite directions from the same runway. I was required to track the centerline of the runway and I don't think the departing Citation pilot attempted to turn right all the way to 343 degrees until 9;100 ft. MSL.  It would have helped if the Tower Controller told us that there will be an opposite departing aircraft prior to that crew actually taking off instead of it being at our altitude within one to two miles from us.




Synopsis: Captain encountered conflict with departing aircraft.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot Flying enroute to DFW on the BRDJE3 RNAV Arrival landing north. We were level at FL240 when ATC issued us a clearance to 'descend via the BRDJE3 arrival except maintain 310 kts' The Captain answered the clearance and since we were in continuous light/bordering moderate chop I elected to vacate the assigned altitude to find a lower smoother altitude; however; I failed to realize that we were not at waypoint TUSLE yet on the arrival. Our position was closer to CHMLI when I started the slow descent. So after our descent by about 300 feet ATC asked to confirm our arrival into DFW which we responded the BRDJE3. He then stated that TUSLE restriction is a FL240 and above and then told us to proceed direct to SEEVR and descend via the BRDJE3 Arrival and comply with speeds at SEEVR. The reason was I left FL240 was the deteriorating ride at that altitude and we did have a clearance to descend via the BRDJE3 Arrival. My [safe altitude] on the STAR was also confused by the poor illustration on Jeppesen page 60-2C for the BRDJE3 RNAV Arrival. If you look at the page you will clearly see NO ALTITUDE next to TUSLE; but what you will see is a small number 1 which then you must search the entire page to find out the number 1 means 'at 290 kts FL300 - FL 240.' I suggest that the Company; Jeppesen; FAA come up with a less cluttered and less sub-texted format for these arrivals. It can [confuse] the crew when ATC changes headings; speeds; and altitudes and goes back and tells crew to descend via the STAR. Sometimes we are left wondering where we are on the STAR. Too many changes and poor depictions on charts can lead to confusion.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported departing from assigned altitude on the BRDJE3 RNAV Arrival into DFW; citing a confusing and cluttered chart as contributing.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain for air ambulance was on a training flight and had put his EMS base on a 15 minute delay in case the base received a call from dispatch. Captain submitted a risk assessment for the training flight and checked the box for 'accepts change to mission'. 5 minutes after departing on training flight; base received an air ambulance operation; pilot returned to base; picked up crew and departed. Upon landing at the community hospital; the Captain attempted to complete a new risk assessment; but could not get the iPad tablet to have connectivity (rural area). Med crew came out of ER with patient; Captain started aircraft and flew to trauma center. Captain forgot to attempt to complete the risk assessment at that location. Entire crew flew back to base and the Captain filled out a risk assessment for the entire patient flight upon return to base. It has been determined that the Captain did not intend to circumnavigate the risk process and acted in good faith. The Captain received counseling from his immediate supervisor on how to appropriately handle this type of situation if it happens again.




Synopsis: Air ambulance helicopter pilot reported a failure to complete the flight risk assessment process due to iPad communication problems in a rural area.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MLB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MLB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing at MLB I turned off of Runway 9L at Taxiway Mike and was instructed to taxi Mike to the ramp. Due to it being dark and taxiway markings in poor condition. I got confused and accidentally taxied onto Taxiway Kilo. This was despite using a taxiway diagram and being very familiar with the airfield. I realized my mistake when I realized that Mike shouldn't have taxiway lights and turned off of Kilo as soon as possible. Luckily; due to the airport being empty at night; there were no aircraft on the taxiway at that point and I believe this reduced any immediate risk from the mistake; which I attempted to correct as soon as it was safe to do so. ATC did not mention my error to me. This means that either ATC did not notice my mistake or they did not think it was significant enough to mention. I was lucky that there wasn't an aircraft on the taxiway which could have resulted in a major situation. I believe it was a combination of fatigue (hour long night flight at the end of a day) and the dark conditions made it difficult to notice the proper taxiway markings. I believe having aircraft taxi on an unlit taxiway at night is risky as it could be easy to miss on a dark night especially next to a lit taxiway which would draw a pilot's visual attention. Additionally; due to it being my home airport I may have subconsciously paid less attention to the airport diagram than I would have at another airport. Going forward I will pay extra close attention to the airport diagram especially at night when I may have to taxi to an unlit portion of the airfield. This combined with verbally briefing the taxi route out loud could prevent an incident like this from happening again. It is easy to get distracted at night; especially if tired at the end of a flight; and make mistakes like this. So definitely; always use a diagram; double check the route and signs; airports should make sure markings are in good condition. More importantly than just using a diagram is actively reading it and understanding it no matter how familiar with the airport you are.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a taxiway incursion at MLB airport and cited lighting and taxiway marking issues as contributing factors.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While operating below the Bravo at 2;500 feet. I observed a multi engine aircraft off my right 1 o'clock close fast and descend to my altitude I executed a climbing turn and violated Class Bravo. I notified ATC after I descended clear.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that a multi engine aircraft closed on and descended towards him; requiring evasive action to avoid a midair collision.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Glider
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was gliding on the local ridge in a G109B motor glider. The rudder came loose in a turn after approximately 45 minutes of flight. The engine had been off for approximately 30 minutes. I completed the turn and luckily was lined up for a straight-in landing at the airport. I was able to glide on the ridge toward the airport and then descend to land using airbrakes. Upon landing without a functional rudder; the longitudinal axis aligned the plane into the left crosswind. Landing slightly misaligned with the runway caused some side-loading. I used the rudder to try and provide steering when the tail wheel contacted the ground. This helped straighten the airplane longitudinal axis with the runway; but likely exacerbated any issues with the rudder. I allowed the airplane to drift into the 'grass runway' used by gliders on the north side of the paved runway as I tried to brake and slow the airplane. The rudder came off about 20 yards from my final stopping point. The airplane was clear of the runway in the grass. I exited the aircraft; picked up the rudder and then taxied the motor glider across the runway over to my assigned tie-down space. My local A&P was working on another airplane and we then spent some time discussing the incident.




Synopsis: Motor glider pilot experienced a 'loose' rudder during a turn with the engine off and turned towards a near by airport. After landing the rudder separated from the aircraft.