elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a new OAPM (Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex) route Aircraft X on the ORCKA 1 SID checked in climbing to 19000 feet instead of 23000 feet. Update the system to reflect proper altitudes.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported an aircraft using a new OAPM departure procedure checked on their frequency climbing to the wrong altitude.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were asked if we could make 40;000 FT within 2 1/2 minutes (from 36;000 FT).  We responded to the affirmative and were subsequently cleared to 40;000 FT with the restriction of 2 1/2 minutes.  When it became apparent to the Controller that we could not meet the restriction he vectored us off course.  The lesson here is simply this: If you cannot easily make the restriction do not accept it.  It is too risky.  I should not have accepted the clearance.  The difference between 36;000 FT and 40;000 FT in terms of fuel use is insignificant and posed a risk that was too great for the benefit derived.  In the future; I will decline clearance to a higher altitude from a high altitude unless it is painfully obvious that we can make it.  I think the Company should give additional high altitude performance training to Crews and suggest that perhaps the risk is high compared to the reward when tasked with high altitude changes in altitude when there is a time limit involved that is close to performance limits as it was with our situation.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no new information]


Synopsis: A B737-700 Crew accepted a climb from FL360 to FL400 to be level in 2 1/2 minutes but when ATC discovered that restriction would not be met vectored the aircraft off route.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departed Runway 8 on EMMYS5 Departure. PDC clearance was climb via EXCEPT maintain 10;000 feet. Departure control contacted climbing out and clearance from departure control was 'climb via SID.' I asked for clarification and response was 'climb via EMMYS5; comply with altitude restrictions.' At this point I read back 'climb to FL230 and comply with the EMMYS 5 restrictions.' I asked the Controller to mark the tapes. Another carrier aircraft right behind us had the same confusion on climb instructions.The clearance limit we were given was to 10;000 feet. When the Controller stated 'comply with restrictions'; it confused us because our restriction was to 10;000 feet. We were not cleared to FL230. The verbiage that is being used may be in compliance with the 7110.65; but it is not what is used elsewhere. The Pilots are expecting to hear relief (climb to FL230) or a continue climb via the departure to FL230. I spoke with Denver TRACON in regards to this confusion. If a previous restriction is applied to an aircraft; the Aircrew is expecting to hear a relief from that altitude or comply with the climb instruction. Again; the terminology may be correct in accordance with a manual; but it is confusing in the dynamic environment of ATC and clear and concise wording is critical to safety.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported receiving a PDC clearance to climb via the SID EXCEPT maintain 10;000 feet. When Departure was contacted after takeoff the instructions were 'climb via SID.' The reporter asked for clarification as he was not sure if the climb limit was the 10000 feet in the PDC or the FL230 on the RNAV chart.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I failed to account for a Final DG Summary before I taxied towards the runway.  My FO made me aware of my mistake and we called requesting a final DG from Operations.  We also discovered the ACARS prompt to request a final DG and we selected it.  A Final DG printout was onboard prior to takeoff.  We also discovered a printout we received at the gate that did not say final DG; but had the location of DG.  This printout may have been the Final DG summary; but were not certain as I don't recall it having a handler's file number.


Second narrative: Push back and taxi without verification of Final DG [Summary]. Power failure at jet bridge prior to APU power caused backlog / jam of ACARS messages. Received planned DG Summary and a change to DG showing dry ice removed; but did not request Final DG Summary until on taxi. Received Final DG Summary and no further issues ensued.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported pushback from the gate without the required Final DG Summary. Final DG Summary was requested and received shortly thereafter.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VHHH.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON VHHH
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were given the BEKOl3A departure from Hong Kong airport and departed on Runway 7R. Shortly after takeoff we encountered what I thought was severe wind shear which I now believe was wake turbulence. The aircraft rolled sharply to the left into a 60 degree bank. I [tried] to the best of my ability to get the aircraft back to a straight and level flight but by that time we were off course well to the left of the departure. We had the terrain in sight at all times. I'm sorry for the deviation from the SID; but I did [try] to the best of my ability to correct an unfortunate situation and fly a safe aircraft.




Synopsis: G200 Captain reported a wake vortex encounter shortly after takeoff from VHHH that resulted in a roll and a track deviation from the assigned SID.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was cleared a visual approach via downwind for Runway 24 into ROA. On the downwind an aural EGPWS warning 'terrain terrain pull up' was received and corrected immediately. After correcting; the approach was completed and the aircraft landed safely.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an EPGWS Terrain Alert on approach to ROA airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Transportation service arrived 15 minutes late combining 4 crews; 8 crew members; from 2 van times. We arrived to the aircraft 25-29 minutes before departure. Aircraft was more than half boarded. The first thing flight attendant said as we stepped on the aircraft was could you turn the power on in the galley. The battery switch was off; emergency exit lights were not armed. They would not be able to make PAs with the power off and only the ground service being powered.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports arriving at the aircraft 29 minutes prior to departure due to transportation issues to find the aircraft half boarded and the lead Flight Attendant requesting the power be turned on. The battery switch was off; emergency exit lights were not armed and they could not make PA's with the power off.
Date: 202012
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passengers X and Y interfering with crew members duties FAR 121.580; refusing to wear a mask and consuming alcohol they brought with them on board the aircraft FAR 121.575.Causing disruption in the cabin.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported two passengers refused to wear masks; brought their own alcohol on board the flight and interfered with flight attendant duties.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we cleared the runway; Ground cleared us across Runway 26L and into the Ramp via Taxiway E3. There was another carrier aircraft that was holding for us to enter the ramp. As we passed the other aircraft; the First Officer called Ramp twice before getting a response. At that time; we had entered the ramp as I believed that Ground had cleared us onto the ramp to get out of the way for the other carrier to continue taxiing. He told us we could not enter the ramp without talking to him and told us; 'Sorry would not cut it.' He then cleared us. Both the First Officer and I could not find any such names on the Commercial Chart pages. We saw vehicles crossing the ramp in front of us and stopped short of that roadway. He informed us that we had stopped at the half road; not the quarter road. We then asked for an explanation and he explained that the ramp was divided by three areas. We could not find any of that terminology on any of the ground charts. We then proceeded to the gate without further incident.




Synopsis: An ATL arrival was questioned by 'Ramp Control' regarding entry into the ramp area. The flight crew indicated that improvements in the charting depictions were needed reference 'ramp names/locations'.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Takeoff out of ZZZ was completed using the company provided ATOG for departure off runway 31 with tailwind calculations completed and at an approved weight. After departure I felt there may have been a compatibility issue and during cruise I looked in the AFM and discovered supplement 3 is not compatible with supplement 26. Which means operations in tailwinds between 10-20kts cannot be conducted on gravel runways. There is absolutely no reason there should be ATOGS provided to crewmembers for tailwind operations from a gravel runway when this is not valid. This is a trap the company has overlooked apparently and the tailwind notes for 10-20 should be removed from the ATOGS completely and immediately to prevent other crews from this circumstance.


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


Synopsis: DHC-8-100 flight crew discovered incompatibility with ATOG procedures off gravel surfaced runways.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a flight we were level at 27;000 feet when we received the following transmission from Center. '(Aircraft X) climb and maintain flight level 290; Correction (Different Call Sign)descend and maintain Flight level 280.' Both of us in the cockpit hesitated to initiate the climb and concurred that his 'correction' may be wanting us to disregard his first instruction. There was then 10-15 seconds of radio chatter before we could confirm our climb to 29;000 feet. The Controller confirmed the climb; and we began climbing immediately. Another controller (Trainer/Supervisor?) came on to ask us if we were climbing. We confirmed that we were. The controller then stressed we needed to climb at best rate to 29;000 feet in a given amount of time. We were easily able to comply with that request. I believe the only way to resolve this problem was for the controller to use the term 'Break' in between his two separate commands to two separate aircraft. I believe we did the right thing in delaying our climb; as his phraseology made us believe there was a conflict with the climb. A quick scan of our TCAS showed that as a possibility. Instead; it sounds as though they needed us to climb ASAP. I do not believe any separation issues occurred. We were able to meet the controller's climb requirement well before the timed duration he gave us.




Synopsis: A pilot received confusing instructions from the Center controller. The pilots delayed complying with the instruction until they were able to verify the instruction with the Controller.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDST.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MDST
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the flying pilot. During our takeoff roll; at high speed; but prior to V1; I heard the tower controller at MDST airport say our call sign but I did not understand what else they said; the captain responded 'unable' then shortly called V1 and for me to rotate. I performed a normal rotation and takeoff. After we had cleaned up and after completion of the after takeoff check; the captain asked me if I was ok with us having continued the takeoff. I wasn't quite sure what he meant until he explained that the tower controller had cancelled our takeoff clearance late during our departure roll. As we were performing a max thrust; bleeds off takeoff; at the maximum allowable gross weight for that runway; with passengers on board; the captain stated that in the interest of safety; he did not call for a rejected takeoff. As we continued the takeoff; we did not have to perform what would have been a high risk; high speed abort. I agree with his decision. It was the safest thing to do.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported MDST Tower canceled their takeoff clearance just prior to V1; but the Captain elected to continue the takeoff.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft was due for an Operational Check Flight after a C check (heavy maintenance). Reaching acceleration altitude; I retracted the flaps from 15 degrees to up and received a Flap Disagreement annunciation. We continued the initial climb and ran the QRH procedure for a Flap Disagreement. The flaps would go back down to the previously selected position normally; but when attempting to again raise the flaps to UP the disagreement returned. Although the flaps were able to extend fully to the landing position (25 degrees) I elected to [request priority handling] and return to ZZZ. ATC was notified and the flight terminated with no further issue.Maintenance said that this issue has been present with this aircraft for many months and although additional trouble shooting and changing of parts the problem continues. Apparently this issue has been troubling Maintenance for some time. They have changed nearly everything in the system and the problem persists. Maintenance has not been able to duplicated the issue on the ground.




Synopsis: EMB-120 Captain reported a flap disagreement during a maintenance test flight.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VGC.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During touchdown a deer ran across the runway and impacted the aircraft's right inboard flap. Landing and rollout were without incident. Taxied clear. Upon visual inspection observed damage to flap. Airport is completely fenced in; but wildlife is still abundant.




Synopsis: CL-600 Captain reported impact with a deer at VGC during landing roll.