elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I returned to the cockpit after using the lavatory and heard the first officer read back a clearance to cross fifteen north of MTATA at FL290. The controller did not correct the first officer. We were shortly thereafter handed off to the next frequency and checked in at FL330. The controller asked us if we had a crossing restriction as the first officer did not supply it upon check in. The first officer said we were to cross fifteen north of MATAT at FL290. The controller said roger. When we reported leaving FL330 the controller asked about our clearance again. The first officer said we were to cross fifteen north of MATAT at FL290. The controller said the correct clearance was to cross 50 north of MTATA at FL290. He then told us to cross MTATA at FL250 which we did.Better radio terminology would be to read back the clearance as fifteen/one five miles or fifty/five zero miles as this would eliminate any missed communication.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported hearing and reading back different distances for a crossing restriction. Fifteen miles was thought; but it was fifty miles. Also; the names of the intersections were extremely similar.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At 3;000 feet MSL we were being vectored from downwind to base for Runway18C at MEM. ATC advised us of traffic at 1;100 feet without comment of its altitude. We identified the traffic on TCAS and scanned externally to attain visual reference. We had not established visual reference with the traffic before the TCAS gave us a climb RA. I adived ATC of our RA responce. As we responded to the climb command I witnessed the traffic pass below us undicating -200 feet on the TCAS display. Once clear of conflict we returned to altitude and proceeded with the approach.No comment from ATC.




Synopsis: An aircraft on downwind vectors for MEM Runway 18C took evasive action to a TCAS near miss at 3;000 feet.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [During pushback]; ramp crew stopped flight on [designated spot] and told Captain to 'set brakes'; which was confirmed by Captain as 'brakes set'. After disconnect the flight began rolling forward. Push back crew continued moving backwards to avoid being struck by aircraft which continued to roll forward into the service road.


Second narrative: Finished the loading of flight and ready for pushback. Pushback aircraft to J marked stop line. After pushback complete the Lead signaled me that brakes are set. So proceeded to remove pin from tow bar and release tow bar from aircraft. After tow bar was released the aircraft proceeded to roll toward me and the pushback. I ran from under the aircraft to get away. The lead continue to tell Captain to set brakes. Aircraft rolled for twenty feet before coming to a stop.


Synopsis: A Ramp crew reported that after pushback and following the 'set brakes' command the aircraft rolled twenty feet back toward the gate.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HIO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Myself (acting as CFI) and a student were on an IFR flight plan initiating from ZZZ inbound on the RNAV 31L Approach at HIO with instructions to circle to land Runway 31R. I believe we were in the descent from 4;000 to 2;000 on course between NNIKE and INTLL in VMC when the Portland Approach Controller called out VFR traffic to our left; approximately same altitude and traveling same direction. I got the traffic in sight; and informed the Controller. The aircraft appeared to be a high wing Cessna and they seemed to be slightly diverging; and we continued the approach as normal. A few seconds later I noticed the aircraft begin to make a left turn as if he were heading southbound away from our track; and at this time the Approach Controller advised he thought the traffic was turning away; no factor; and to contact Hillsboro Tower; I then noticed that the aircraft was actually making what appeared to be a left 270 degree turn which would have put it on a 90 degree intercept straight into our left side slightly higher and confirmed this on our ADSB screen; since I could not see the aircraft at this point due to it being slightly higher and our wing blocking view; I immediately took controls from my student and decided to take evasive action by pulling power to idle and initiating a rapid descent to approx 1200 feet MSL (TPA at HIO) until I felt we were clear of the conflict. Hillsboro Tower did not call out the traffic in my call to them and I then asked if they were in contact with that aircraft that they were 'Way too close' (less than 500 ft horizontal separation in my approximation) and they said 'roger' and asked us to call when we were on the ground. We; at this point; we'll below glide path for the approach; continued a normal visual approach and landing to Runway 31R and after flight contacted HIO Tower and gave them my information and they said they were going to file a report and would be in further contact with me if need be.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported an NMAC during approach to HIO airport.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Thrust Reverser Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain's takeoff. As soon as the Captain pushed the TOGA levers and the throttles started to move forward the Reverser Unlocked Light illuminated and the Captain immediately performed a rejected takeoff. The light was only on momentarily and the aircraft had moved a short distance forward at a taxi speed. The Captain rejected takeoff before I had called out any malfunction. Once the aircraft was stopped; I informed tower that we had rejected the takeoff and did not require assistance. I thought that I had seen the Reverser Unlocked Light on the #2 engine; but I was not 100% certain which engine. The Captain confirmed that it had been the #2 engine Reverser Unlocked Light. I asked the Captain if he had inadvertently engaged the thrust reverser lever during the attempted takeoff. The Captain didn't think so but thought it might be possible. With the possibility that the crew induced the malfunction; we agreed to attempt another takeoff from our current position. The second takeoff attempt yielded the same indications and resulted in a second taxi speed rejected takeoff. We returned to the chocks. Maintenance locked the #2 reverser closed and we returned without further incident. Upon further reflection I think that we made a few poor decisions in this sequence of events. First; it was a poor decision to attempt a second takeoff with this malfunction. It was flawed thinking to suggest the Captain could have engaged the thrust reversers while the throttles were advancing forward. And; even if the Captain had been able to inadvertently engage the thrust reverser during takeoff; we should have known that this would be a malfunction that would require maintenance action before continuing our flight. Second; our subsequent takeoff attempt was performed utilizing full length runway performance data even though we were a short distance down the runway after our first takeoff attempt. I think that we would have made better decisions if we had exited the active runway and taken a few more minutes to consider our options.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported questioning the wisdom of a second takeoff attempt and reject due to a Reverser Unlocked Light after the first takeoff was rejected for the same reason.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; and just after gear retraction; we experienced a loss of the A system hydraulic pressure and quantity. We climbed to a safe altitude and notified ATC. We ran the appropriate checklist for the loss of A hydraulics. We requested delay vectors to complete the checklist. We briefed the passengers; and diverted to ZZZ. ATC advised that ZZZ was the longest runway nearby. We informed them that we would be stopping on the runway using emergency brakes. We were vectored to a right downwind for Runway XX by ATC. On the first attempt of landing; we were turned in too soon; resulting in an unstabilized approach. We executed a missed approach; and entered right traffic pattern as directed by ATC. On the second attempt; the landing was stabilized and completed with the use of emergency brakes. We stopped on the runway and were met by fire personnel. They gave us the all clear sign. We had the FBO come and grab the passengers to take them to the FBO. They then towed us into their ramp.


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


Synopsis: CE750 flight crew reported the loss of the A system hydraulic system during their initial climb and subsequent successful divert.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While parking at the Gate Lead Marshaller was directing forward and cleared into gate. Both left and right wing walkers had their wands up signaling it was safe to continue. However; a vehicle from the left and right passed both wing walkers and failed to yield. They failed to stop the vehicle and the lead marshaller continued to signal the aircraft forward. I stopped the aircraft and flashed the landing lights in an attempt to signal the vehicles. Both vehicles failed to yield and proceeded in front of me through the assumed safety zone. Operations was notified. Vehicle traffic failing to yield to aircraft and ramp crew failing to establish a safe zone for aircraft movement. These gates are hard stands at the airport. They are poorly light and markings are not visible at night in raining wet conditions. Better markings and red safety zone lines would help. Ramp crew need to be assertive with ground traffic and stop traffic when aircraft are approaching to park. If a safety hazard presents itself the ramp crew need to signal the aircraft it is no longer safe to approach and signal to stop the aircraft until they have established safety for the aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported ground crew failed to maintain a safe zone in poorly marked; dimly lit gate; resulted in stopping aircraft.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CHSLY 3 Arrival landing south is confusing. Multiple instructions on the course to fly. Notes instruct to select RWY 23 (which was closed). Approach will assign runway. The arrival and landing was briefed - nowhere does it say once approach assigns a RWY to change and fly that transition. This procedure is vague at best and is setting up crews for failure. This procedure needs to be changed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported confusing instructions listed on the CHSLY 3 RNAV Arrival into CLT.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying back from a long cross-country flight and due to poor planning on my side; we landed with minimum fuel in the tanks. This event could have been easily fixed if I had followed the original flight plan and stopped for refueling as planned. The flight was planned by me; the flight instructor; and [included] a stop for fuel.Approximately 30 minutes after takeoff I saw that we probably wouldn't make it on time back to our original point of departure; so I decided to proceed direct without a fuel stop. During the entire flight back my student and I kept monitoring our fuel level and decided that if by any chance we couldn't comply with the regulations (because of any unforecasted weather; ATC delays; etc) we would stop and refuel. I made the decision to continue since our fuel level indicated that we have enough to get to [destination] and for an extra 1 hour of flight time. Two days after the flight; while the airplane was being refueled; it came to my attention that the airplane was refueled with 75 gallons of fuel. The total usable fuel for 76.4; which means that we landed with only 1.4 gallons although the fuel indication showed us that we had almost 3 gallons in each tank.




Synopsis: DA-42 instructor and student landed with minimum fuel after electing to bypass a planned fuel stop in order to return to departure airport on time.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We just implemented new airspace procedures at BOI. I had Aircraft X departing VFR and wanting to go to the southeast. His on-course heading required me to get approval from another Controller. I requested to put the aircraft on a heading of 090 and the other Controller approved that. Our new procedure requires the Clearance Delivery Controller to restrict VFR aircraft departing to the southeast [to] at or below 5;000 ft. I forgot about the altitude restriction and failed to delete it when I put the aircraft on a different heading. The aircraft entered a 6;500 ft. MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) without the altitude restriction being deleted.I needed to be more alert to my strip markings. The new procedures here will take time to get more comfortable with; but the strip marking was done correctly and it was my mistake that I did not catch the error. The only recommendation that I have is that we all just need time for new procedures to become more familiar.




Synopsis: A BOI Controller reported they forgot to remove an altitude restriction on an aircraft before violating the minimum vectoring altitude.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared the visual approach to Runway 3 crossing the ridge line from the east. Configuration and sequencing looked good until the Pilot Flying cut downwind off to a tight base. I made a challenge that we were high on base. The Pilot Flying acknowledged. We were not stabilized at a thousand feet so as Pilo Monitoring; I directed a go-around. The PF carried the approach a couple hundred feet more and satisfying his curiosity; he initiated the go-around. I notified Tower and we were assigned a climb to 8;000 FT and a turn to 310 degrees. We were then given a visual to Runway 8. I set the NAVAIDs up and made the modifications to the MCP. Stable on the downwind; I updated the box. Tower asked for the reason for the go-around and; after I answered; he gave us the option to use Runway 3. I asked the Pilot Flying which runway he preferred and he said Runway 3 as that was the runway he thought we were going to anyway. I reset the MCP and NAVAIDs; and updated the box. As he was hand flying; I went to set his Course Select window; which he asked me not to. The go-around maneuver was smooth and deliberate; but I was surprised that after Tower assigning Runway 8 and the change of the MCP and NAVAIDs; which I recall verbalizing; that the PF felt a bit out of the loop as to aircraft setup. The second approach was established at 1;000 FT and a nice landing was made.A go-around causes a lot of activity and in the case of a directed go-around; the Pilot Flying is not always focused on what will happen but is still thinking about what has happened. I should be more careful on the set; acknowledge; and verify the sequence to make sure everyone is staying up with the progress of the aircraft.




Synopsis: A B737-700 First Officer executed a go-around from an unstabilized approach to ABQ Runway 3 and was assigned Runway 8 but preferred Runway 3 for the second successful approach.