elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had been watching our fuel since we had the APU running for almost 2 hours due to extreme heat and a slow load team. As we took the runway I thought we had gone below required fuel on the release. We had been cleared for takeoff; I asked to cancel takeoff clearance to clear the runway and confirm fuels with [Operations]. We accomplished that and after I called [Operations] I realized I had been using takeoff fuel not required fuel. We in fact had plenty of fuel to depart. We reentered the line for the runway and departed uneventfully.As a crew we had just focused in on the wrong number on the release. I was coming off of a month of vacation so I wasn't as sharp as I needed to be on this day. Also the long wait followed by all the activity happening at once for departure did not help. I need to be a little more vigilant to what I am looking at on the release regardless of what is going on. I am glad we took the time to confirm things with [Operations]. It resulted in a little embarrassment for me but in the end we took a conservative route; we consulted with [Operations] and the cargo moved safely.




Synopsis: MD-10 flight crew reported misinterpreting fuel quantity on release.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed ZZZ and were cleared on the SID. I was the Pilot Flying and hand flying using the HUD. Our PDC clearance was to climb via the SID; EXCEPT to maintain 4000 ft. I was flying the course towards a fix and climbing to 4000 ft. Tower switched us to Departure. The instructions from the Departure Controller were to 'climb via the SID'. This was an unusual clearance to me (I was expecting the usual climb to 17;000 ft) and it sounded odd.I queried the FO about the assigned altitude and asked what was the top altitude for the SID (while still climbing to 4000 ft; and still hand flying with the HUD). The FO responded that it was 4000 ft. So I leveled the aircraft at 4000 ft. A few minutes later the Controller switched us to the next frequency. We contacted the next Controller who stated that we were on the wrong frequency and to go back to the previous frequency; which we did. When we returned to the previous Controller (the original Departure Controller) he told us that we were cleared to climb via the SID and that we were supposed to be climbing to 17;000 ft versus remaining at 4000 ft. This was now several minutes after the original contact.We apologized and I immediately began the climb (using the autopilot now) via the SID and we did make all the climbing restrictions on the SID while climbing to 17;000 ft. The flight then proceeded to our destination without any further issues.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew experienced miscommunication with ATC during departure climb as to what altitude to climb to.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the DYAMD 2 RNAV Arrival and crossed ARCHI at 7000 ft. Expecting the QUIET BRIDGE Visual to Runway 28L and when checking-on with the Final Approach Controller we were asked if we had the NOTAM for the revised crossing at ARCHI. We had missed the NOTAM restriction of 8000 ft at ARCHI on the cover page of the weather package. There were no traffic conflicts and we flew the visual approach to 28L and not the QUIET BRIDGE as we had planned on. Would have helped if we had received the weather package in a timelier manner prior to departure.


Second narrative: We were flying the DYAMD 2 into SFO to Runway 28R. There was a NOTAM to cross ARCHI intersection at 8000 ft instead of 7000 ft as charted and what was in the FMC if landing 28R. Oakland Center cleared us on a visual to 28L after the arrival. We then descended to 7000 ft as per the arrival because the NOTAM pertained to 28R. Center informed us of our deviation and said it was ok but heads up on the NOTAMS next time; we still should have been at 8000 ft over ARCHI. We landed 28L no other problems.


Synopsis: B737 Flight Crew reported overlooked or believed that a NOTAM to cross ARCHI at 8000 ft does not apply to their situation.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; 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: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were filed to DFW from ZZZ via …GUTZZ.BOOVE4. The Controller at ZZZ issued a 'cleared as filed' clearance. After takeoff; we received several shortcuts on the route; but were eventually cleared direct to GUTZZ. About 3 miles prior to EGADS intersection on the BOOVE4 Arrival; we were issued a 'descend via' the SOCKK3 Arrival. In the process of changing the arrival from the BOOVE4 to the SOCKK3; we overshot EGADS by about 3 miles on the 003 degree track. We managed to get the SOCKK3 Arrival programmed and sequenced direct to KIILO intersection. This took about 30 seconds to accomplish. We were queried by Center about our position being west of the 026 degree track. We explained we had been cleared as filed at ZZZ; which included the BOOVE4 Arrival and the SOCKK3 clearance caught us by surprise. She stated that she understood the problem. She cleared us direct to KILLO intersection (we were already going direct) and a descent to 10;000 feet. She later re-issued the SOCKK3 clearance and handed us off to Approach. Nothing else was said by the Controller regarding the course deviation.The Controller seemed busy and saturated with traffic due to the change in flow; she should have given us the new arrival clearance a lot sooner and not last minute. We could have asked for a vector and altitude while we uploaded the new arrival.


Second narrative: I should have asked Center for a vector and an altitude since I was rapidly approaching a turn point in the Arrival with an explanation of our filed route versus clearance.


Synopsis: CRJ flight crew reported deviating from BOOVE4 SID clearance while inputting new clearance from ATC.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Aircraft Auto Temperature System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft flew in with 2 placards:  21-1 (for the Right Pack) and 21-16b (Flight Deck Temperature Control System).  We reviewed the MEL and verified that the placarding was done correctly and that we would be following proper procedures.  There were widespread thunderstorms along our planned route; thus the primary focus of my preflight planning was on the altitude restriction of FL250 due to MEL 21-1. While we were on the gate; the cabin was a little warm; but not above the point that would have prevented boarding.  But after takeoff; the cabin became very warm and the cockpit very cold.  During the entire flight we were only marginally successful in mitigating the comfort level on the aircraft. We were well into the flight; having spent a great deal of time assessing the situation before we came upon the root cause:  Under the MEL 21-16b; there is a note that primarily addresses flight deck temperature control.  But when combined with MEL 21-1 this ultimately meant that we were flying an aircraft with no temperature control at all.  While I reviewed the MEL while we were on the gate; I did not make the connection between this note and the placarding of the right pack. Because 21-16b is entitled 'Flight Deck Temp Control' it did not occur to me that we would have temperature control issues throughout the airplane and not just an issue of a constant 75 degree flow to the cockpit.  I did not draw the connection between the note at the end of MEL 21-16b and MEL 21-1. In retrospect; I should have refused this aircraft.  The MEL should be revised to make MELs 21-1 and 21-16b mutually exclusive.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reports being unable to control the cabin temperature after being dispatched with MEL's for the right pack and Flight Deck Temperature Control System inoperative. A condition for the Flight Deck Temperature Control inoperative MEL is that the right pack must be operational.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to an intersection which I read back as VULCN on the FYTTE2 arrival and proceeded that way; a turn to [the] left. The controller; Chicago; came back and said something like we misunderstood or that I misunderstood; can't really remember; [and] then said we were cleared to the WELCM intersection. I then proceeded that way after I had him spell it out. VULCN and WELCM sound similar on the radio. The rest of the crew heard VULCN as well.Have Chicago spell phonetically the intersection. These two intersections sound very similar on the radio. I read back VULCN and wasn't corrected; next time I will spell out the intersection to ATC.




Synopsis: B747-8 Captain reported a track deviation on arrival to ORD when he navigated toward VULCN instead of WELCM as ATC intended.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying single pilot in a Velocity Standard RG at 8;000 feet MSL. I experienced a sudden violent airframe vibration caused by a propeller blade failure. A State highway was to my left and was vacant of any traffic; I secured the engine and made an approach and uneventful landing on the highway exiting under control onto a dirt road. No injuries were sustained. County Sheriff arrived on scene to assist but none was needed. NTSB was notified as required.




Synopsis: An experimental aircraft pilot experiences a sudden violent airframe vibration caused by a propeller blade failure at 8;000 feet. The engine is secured and the aircraft is landed on a state highway with no traffic conflicts.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on approach and landing at ZZZ just as my aircraft touched down on the runway; a Medical Evac. helicopter was sitting stationary on the runway centerline. The atmospheric conditions of haze and smoke made the helicopter blend in with the runway and was not visible to me until touchdown.  I was able to avoid a collision by use of heavy braking and steering to the complete right side of the runway.  I announced my position on the CTAF while five miles out; three miles out and one mile out.  I did not hear any communication from the helicopter until I was completely stopped; at that time he announced he was leaving the runway for the helicopter pad.  The helicopter was engaged in some training exercise; it is not known why no radio transmissions was heard from them until they departed the runway after I landed.




Synopsis: Following announcing the approach on the CTAF frequency; a PA28 pilot discovered a stationary helicopter occupying the runway during rollout. He was able to avoid a collision only to hear first communication from the helicopter reporting hovertaxi off the runway.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAMV.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SAMV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Severe Turbulence at FL380 crossing the Andes Mountain range.  Airspeed fluctuated both plus and minus 45 knots; into both the max speed and the lower foot causing stick shaker and overspeed warnings.  Altitude was uncontrollable during the event and fluctuated both plus and minus approximately 800 feet.  ATC was notified.  Maintenance was notified upon landing; however no Maintenance Log entry was made; specifically for the overspeed warning.  We briefed possible turbulence and queried both ATC and Dispatch prior to the area in question for flight planning purposes. Suggest better weather modeling or forecasting.




Synopsis: A Wide Body freighter aircraft encountered severe turbulence at FL380 crossing the Andes Mountains into Santiago; Chile which resulted in altitude deviations of plus and minus 800 feet along with high and low speed warnings caused by airspeed fluctuation of 45 knots.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Radar position at R11 - Brewton Sector when I received an inter-phone call; from the Eglin Missions Controller inquiring if I was aware that the Eglin E ATCAA and Restricted areas (R2914-AB; R2915-ABC; R2918; R2919-AB) were active up to FL350. I responded that I was only showing it active up to FL300. When I received the call; an air carrier; Aircraft X level at FL340; was in the middle of the airspace transiting from east to west on a direct route to AEX; which I had issued to the aircraft previously. The previous route of Aircraft X would have cleared the airspace in question prior to me clearing the aircraft direct AEX. The Eglin Controller assured me that he had seen the discrete code and everything was OK; but that the airspace was activated up to FL350. I had assumed the position at which time the briefing included information that the airspace was only active up to FL300. When the Eglin Controller informed me of the issue; I did look at the ESIS which indeed showed the altitudes of FL240B350; however when I assumed the position the altitudes indicated FL240B300. Apparently there was a change in the altitudes of the airspace that I was not informed of. Had I known of the change in the altitudes I never would have cleared Aircraft X direct AEX putting the aircraft through Restricted Areas. I did call the Eglin Controller back to confirm that the previous altitudes were indeed FL240B300; and he did confirm this but they had a second mission come up which required the higher altitudes.This seems to be an ongoing issue in which airspace activation or changes is not being disseminated from the Missions Coordinator; through the FLM and eventually to the controller/s working the airspace or adjacent airspace. There is obviously a breakdown in communications. My recommendation is to establish a procedure to ensure that once SUA is activated and any changes thereof; it is disseminated all the way to the Controller involved; be it by verbal; or automated means; but something needs to happen.




Synopsis: Center Controller received phone call from Military Facility advising a Restricted Area was hot; up to an altitude the Center Controller was not aware of; thus causing an airspace violation.