elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a stable normal ILS approach in VMC conditions; light winds; to Runway XXL we received a TE FLAP DISAGREE message and warning/caution after Captain selected Flaps 25.  The aircraft was configured for the ATC assigned 160 KTS to ZZZZZ Intersection (Flaps 20; gear down; autopilot ON).  Just prior to ZZZZZ; I called for Flaps 25 and began to slow the aircraft for final approach speed.  We received the message and after a brief scan of the instruments could see the flap lever was in the 25 detent; but the flap gauge indicated both remained in the Flaps 20 position.  Everything else appeared normal.  The Captain and I had a brief and succinct discussion about our situation and he said; 'Continue.'  He looked up the appropriate Flaps 20 landing speed and set it and I turned off the auto pilot and hand flew the remaining portion of the approach and landing.  The landing was uneventful otherwise. Once we cleared the runway we did not retract the flaps; called Operations and informed them we would be arriving with flaps extended and then called Maintenance.  Maintenance concurred that they wanted the flaps to remain as-is for inspection and said they would meet us at the gate for a de-brief.  We taxied to gate; parked; deplaned the passengers and waited for Maintenance. They arrived a few minutes later. At some point during the 5-10 minutes at the gate; the flaps recovered and extended to 25 to match the lever position.




Synopsis: B757 flight crew experienced a TE Flap Disagree on final approach when selecting Flaps 25. Flaps stayed at 20 and crew landed at adjusted speed without incident.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower FAT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My FO landed in FAT on RWY 29R and coasted down to the exit where I usually; almost always go; B10. Upon approaching this exit tower told us to turn left at B10; cross RWY 29L and call ground control. I read this back just before the beginning of that turn and we switched controls at that time also. The distance between the runways is very short; and the hold short line; if you do hold short is very soon after exiting RWY 29R. Having made the 90 degree turn I looked left and noticed a GA airplane on very short final crossing over the threshold to RWY 29L. I made a very quick decision to hold short. My FO made a very quick decision and made a call to tower that we were holding short for traffic. The tower acknowledged our call and switched to telling the GA aircraft to land and exit to the left. Shortly after that we were then told to cross RWY 29L and call ground. Later; in the terminal; another Captain came specifically to talk to me about how he witnessed the exact same thing because they were right behind us on B10.I think the reactions of everyone were quickly performed; but adequate to eliminate any actual traffic conflict; but it was just a matter of a second or two. Again; no conflict did occur because of everyone's reaction. As mentioned before it seems neither of us recalls hearing a GA aircraft being cleared to land. ATC; along with the flight crews must maintain situational awareness and be ready to speak up when a potential conflict exists.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being cleared to cross a runway at FAT where a GA aircraft was on very short final. The Captain elected to hold short of the runway.
Date: 201704
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While completing an emergency exit row check (after briefing) some passengers alerted me to a male passenger who arbitrarily moved to the empty exit row seat. I asked the passenger what his original seat assignment was. He replied XXB. I requested he return to his original seat. Passenger complied. During the beverage service; at row XXABC; I noticed the B seat was not occupied. I finished service; and checked the lavatories. The lavatories were unoccupied. I looked throughout the cabin for passenger XXB. He was once again sleeping in the empty economy section. I requested the passenger for the second time to return to his seat. Noncompliance. I then went to the forward galley for assistance. [The Purser] proceeded to speak with the passenger. After a long discussion; the passenger returned to XXB. A brief time later XXB aggressively approached me in the rear galley. Pointing his finger in my face; he demanded my name; my crew member's names; the Captain's name; 'everyone's name working the flight;' The passenger had what appeared to be alcohol on his breath. I once again; for the third time during the flight requested he return to his seat. His aggressiveness startled and alarmed me. I was offered official assistance; in wake of the aggressive actions of passengers against airline personnel.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported noncompliance with an apparently intoxicated passenger.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: Tower SBA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SBA is currently reporting an active NOTAM that renders the DA for both the ILS and GPS approaches to 7/25 NA due to a temporary crane. This NOTAM only leaves the VOR 7 as a usable approach. The ceiling at SBA at our time of arrival was 300 feet. The VOR DA would be 500 feet; while the ILS DA (if usable) would be 220 feet. Upon switching frequencies to SBA Approach; we were told to expect the ILS. The Pilot Monitoring queried ATC about the clearance in comparison to the active NOTAM. ATC informed the flight crew that the crane was not currently up; is only up at certain times depending on the weather; and must receive permission from SBA ATC before erecting it. So ATC advices that the NOTAMs for both the crane and the approach DAs being NA were not currently active or applicable. ATC also notified us that there was another aircraft currently holding for the same reason trying to get a hold of company. We notified ATC that we would accept his verbal confirmation that the NOTAM was no longer active and would continue with flying the ILS 7 as assigned by ATC. The approach was flown to the runway with no abnormal events.Suggestions - SBA only issuing a temporary NOTAM during the times when the crane is actually up and constituting an obstacle; and removing the NOTAM when the crane is not erected and constituting a hazard to aircraft flying the approaches to runways 7/25.




Synopsis: Pilot reported SBA has an active crane related NOTAM that is only really active at certain times.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HDN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
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 ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Executing a visual approach to Runway 28 backing it up with the GPS RNAV 28 approach. When we broke off the approach to align with centerline we got a caution terrain aural. Breaking off the approach too soon. Being unfamiliar with the airport and surroundings. (It was my second time to the field).In the future doing this approach I will be following the approach all the way to minimums before breaking off the approach to line up with centerline.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported breaking off an approach too early resulting in a CFTT.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing TEB Runway 24 on the RUUDY departure we believed we were cleared via the RUUDY4 as filed. Our filed flight plan showed BAAYS as our first fix. As the initial New York TRACON controller turned us off the RUUDY departure he issued us a 040 degree heading and instructed us to proceed direct to BREZY when able. We made the turn to 040 and advised that BREZY was not in our flight plan. The controller became considerably irritated and proceeded to give us a verbal reprimand. We continued on the 040 heading and loaded BREZY into the FMS and proceeded direct as instructed. Upon further review we realized that as we picked up our PDC and loaded the FMS we overlooked the initial fix which was in fact BREZY V39 CMK then BAYYS as filed. We loaded it as depicted on the PDC and continued on the route. At no time were we off course or did we stray from the 040 heading we were instructed to fly. I do not believe any separation was ever compromised. In the future when picking up a clearance via PDC I will be more cognizant of the fact that there is no read back to ATC which I believe is a good method of checks and balances. For this reason I will always ask the other crewmember to review the PDC in the FMS and not just what I wrote down on the flight release. I simply missed the line in the FMS with the slight amendment to our route.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain; departing TEB on the RUUDY4; reports missing an amendment to the flight plan issued via PDC. When cleared direct BREZY it cannot be found in the FMC route ATC is advised; which greatly irritates the N90 Controller.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D IWA
ATC / advisory: Ground IWA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon contacting ground I was given taxi instructions of Echo; Yankee; Whiskey; Victor; Alpha; hold short PAPA. I wrote down the directions and had the airport diagram displayed on my MFD and iPad. After a 5-10 minute taxi the taxiway turns left and turns into PAPA. I failed to see the PAPA taxiway designation and did not hold short of PAPA as directed. I was aware of runway 30L on my left and that taxiway PAPA was a direct taxiway to hold short of runway 30 center. I looked right to make sure that the approach to runway 30L was clear and I saw that I was crossing what I thought were the ILS markings however I had inadvertently crossed through not only the ILS markings but taxied through the approach corridor of 30L. I never saw the PAPA taxiway signs on Alpha and as I was so focused on switching over to the tower frequency and making sure I held short of runway 30C all I saw were ILS designated markings and did not recognize them as what I think must have been ILS markings combined with the start of taxiway PAPA. When I called the tower upon landing we discussed it and they told me that they are having internal discussions about the signage and possible issues with it not being clear. I asked them was the sign for taxiway PAPA on the straight part of Alpha or did PAPA start after turning left on the taxiway which becomes PAPA. The tower told me that they were not sure where the PAPA taxiway designation sign was.




Synopsis: Citation Captain reported not being able to see the airport signage for the taxiway that was the limit of his taxi clearance.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at 4;000 MSL the ALT light came on and we decided to turn back to the airport. Then I observed that the ammeter was pegged at plus 60 AMPS. I told my student to turn the alternator switch off and he did. Then I smelled an electrical burning smell. I shut the master switch off at that time and decided to make a precautionary off field landing as quickly as possible. No persons were injured during the landing. The aircraft was not damaged during the landing. No private property was damaged during the landing.




Synopsis: An AA5A Instructor pilot and his student made an emergency off airport landing when the ammeter pegged high followed quickly by burning electrical odors in the cockpit. No injuries to the occupants nor damage to the airplane were incurred.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other In Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was instructed by Management to jack up aircraft. Was told that proper documentation for shoring aircraft was available; but I personally did not witness this authorization. Was advised by higher seniority mechanics to not jack aircraft; and did so along with them anyways. Environment for jacking aircraft was not adequate in my professional opinion as there was a slight decline to the left side of the aircraft. Overall felt unsafe and would not assure anyone of the aircraft being securely jacked/shored.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reports jacking an airplane without proper shoring.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared for the ILS approach into ZZZ. The conditions were IMC and outside air temperature near freezing. The aircraft turbine engine lost power. I declared an emergency to ATC. I applied the alternate induction and intake anti-icing system and unsuccessfully attempted to restart the turbine. Losing altitude at a high rate I feathered the propeller and established best glide speed. A second attempt to restart was successful. I re-established altitude and position to complete the approach.On the ground when reviewing the potential causes I called the [turbine engine conversion] Company to review the flameout occurrence. The procedure when flying in visual moisture and near freezing temperatures is to have the alternate induction open and the intake anti-icing on. Because I was not seeing any ice formation on the airframe I didn't activate the procedure. The Company representative reminded me that activation of the system should be applied when outside air temperatures get down to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.The flame out most likely occurred due to disruption of airflow into the turbine compressor inlet due to ice formation. This occurred because I did not have the alternate induction open and the intake anti-icing on. On previous occasions in nearly the same conditions I successfully completed the flights with no indication of adverse turbine operation. The procedure for activation of the anti-icing system was covered in the initial aircraft training I received. I had not recalled the call out for the activation of the system in temperatures as high as 40 degrees until I reviewed the event with the Company representative. I hadn't employed the system prior to this event.I now employ the system as specified by the company's procedure.




Synopsis: The pilot of turbine engine converted Cessna 207 suffered a flame out in IMC while on an ILS approach. After declaring an emergency he was able to restart the engine and complete the approach and landing.
Date: 202009
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Operating flight as Pilot Monitoring. We were deviating to avoid weather along the route. We were cleared direct to ZZZZZ waypoint and asked for a deviation around weather but was initially denied. We were only authorized a deviation right of course in which were able to avoid the first TCU (Towering Cumulus) but the wind direction and velocity forced us into the second TCU as we were turning back onto course. Prior to entering the TCU the wings were leveled and we experienced a climb of approximately 700-800 ft. During the altitude excursion ATC asked why we had deviated and I replied that we were currently in the TCU. The autopilot remained engaged and within approximately 10 seconds the aircraft recovering back to the assigned altitude. ATC asked again for the reason and I replied that we had entered the TCU momentarily and was back on course and assigned altitude. ATC inability to provide deviations in either direction due to weather. Better communication between ATC facilities and increased tolerances left or right of course for hazardous weather conditions.




Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported altitude deviation due to weather.