elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VABF.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global 5000 (Bombardier)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center VABF
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; 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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for a VOR approach at Pune; India we were on a right downwind for Runway 28 and on an assigned heading of 103 degrees. We were given a descent to which I understood to be 2;800 FT and read back 2;800 FT. When reaching 2;800 FT we got an EGPWS warning 'To Low GEAR.' When initially hearing 2;800 FT; I thought it was low because on the DME ARC it states 3;800 FT. The pilot flying and our third pilot in the jump seat heard me read back 2;800 FT and didn't question my response. Shortly after receiving the EGPWS warning Approach Control told us we were at 2;700 FT and that we were cleared to 3;800 FT and to climb back up to 3;800 FT. I mentioned to Approach I had understood and read back 2;800 FT and we were climbing to 3;800 FT. This all happened rather quickly; fortunately the weather was scattered clouds and visibility was good along with the Controller catching the mistake. I feel the language barrier added to this error. I let the Controller lead me into a false sense of security when he gave us a vector of 103 degrees thinking this Military Controller is very precise; normally vectors are given in 5 degree increments. Next time I will follow my gut and question the Controller.




Synopsis: Global 5000 First Officer accepts a clearance to descend to 2;800 FT during approach to VAPO. This triggers a GPWS warning and a call from ATC to climb up to 3;800 FT.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During preflight walk-around; I discovered Number 8 tire brake wear indicator pins not protruding beyond flush of face of the guide. I informed the Captain and Maintenance was called. The Maintenance Representative checked the Number 8 brake pins and told us in the cockpit that 'the brake indicator pins were flush.' I spoke up and said that our manual indicates that they must protrude 'beyond flush; not just flush.' After verifying the verbiage in the B777 Operating Manual; I informed the Captain that; according to the B777 Aircraft Manual; Volume 1; we are required to 'Make an XX entry if these requirements are not met.' I also showed him the corresponding note in the manual. His question to me was; 'What will make you happy?' My response was; 'make an XX entry in the logbook. That's what it states in the manual.' He then left the cockpit for what I thought was to get Maintenance to sign off the write-up. However; he came back shortly thereafter and said he looked at the brake indicators and he was OK with it. No XX entry was made. I got the impression that the Captain simply did not want to delay departure for a maintenance write-up and sign off.The Captain is a high level management pilot and he stated that he did not fly very frequently. I have been doing walk-arounds on the B777 since 1999 and this is the first time that I had noticed brake wear indicator pins that were not protruding beyond flush. Therefore; I was taken back a bit by the fact that he would ask for my opinion on the issue and then totally disregard it just to avoid a short maintenance paperwork delay. The supervisor/subordinate relationship was definitely a major factor in the event and the tension in the cockpit that resulted from this incident continued throughout the remainder of the three day trip. I felt that I was assertive and communicated my thoughts well to the captain and I don't think requesting a simple XX write-up was unreasonable by any means. Short of walking off the aircraft; I don't know what else could have been done.




Synopsis: A B777 First Officer reported after his walk around that the Number 8 brake wear indicator pins were at the maximum allowable wear but the Captain would not put the anomaly in the aircraft maintenance log for an inspection.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When cleared for takeoff RWY 20R at SNA; tower mentioned that there was traffic on 3 mile final and that a helicopter was approaching from the southeast. Tower stated that the helicopter 'Will remain east of your departure path'. I checked the final traffic and initiated takeoff roll. At around the '80 Knots' call I noticed a helicopter approaching perpendicular to our runway at a high rate of closure. The helicopter was descending and closing on our departure path as we were accelerating with 26K max thrust. Very uncomfortable. At V1 -15 knots; he began a steep banked turn to parallel our runway and arrested his closure at about 100 ft left and 200 ft above our runway. He then continued his descent next to our runway. Approaching V1 I lost sight of him in the ground clutter and my FO yelled that he was clear of the runway. I have never seen anything quite like this situation. We were unable to do anything except reject our near balanced field takeoff; which would not have saved us from a collision if the helicopter had not turned at the last possible moment. Tower said nothing. I am used to VFR traffic and parallel runway ops at SNA but this was a far greater threat than I have ever seen there. I have been flying out of SNA for the last 25 years. ATC needs to provide more information or make sure we have a visual on traffic which affects our departure. I assumed the helicopter was a law enforcement helo working low and left of our departure path. Somehow I missed that he was landing at SNA. If I had known what was going to transpire I would not have accepted a takeoff clearance. When ATC says an aircraft 'Will do something'; who has responsibility if he doesn't? We were also part of a squeeze play in front of the traffic on 3 mile final-which rushed the whole situation. In hindsight; I could have refused the takeoff clearance just based on the final approach traffic.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of being advised of helicopter traffic while departing. Pilot sees traffic then rejects takeoff due to close proximity of traffic.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Trinidad TB-20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were the fourth plane in a row to land on RWY XX at ZZZ.  I had my landing lights on for visibility.  Aircraft Y was holding short.  I made radio calls on the 45; downwind; base; final and short final. When I was within a few hundred horizontal feet and about 75 feet above touchdown; Aircraft Y pulled onto the runway without making a radio call. I radioed for him to stop but he kept going. I raised my landing gear and commenced an emergency climb. During the procedure I estimate that I passed 25 feet over him. I made several more radio calls on the CTAF but never got a response. He continued his takeoff and was behind me as I climbed. Aircraft Y apparently was not listening to the radio even though three planes landed immediately before me. Even more serious is that he apparently never even looked to see if a plane was on final although the weather was perfectly clear and I had my landing lights on. This came very close to being a disaster.




Synopsis: TB-20 single pilot reported an NMAC event during landing with a non-reporting aircraft that abruptly initiated a takeoff.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A B757 was level at FL390 northbound on route. In compliance with SOP; I gave/received lower on the aircraft from Lorain Sector and told them to cross 85 miles south of YXU at FL330. The aircraft read back this clearance and it was correct. The sector to the north of me called to point out another Air Carrier; a westbound flight that was at FL360. While he did this; I showed him the B757; told him they would be descending and I would miss the other flight. One minute out from 85 south of YXU I asked the B757; who was still at FL390; if he would make his restriction and they said yes. I asked him to verify that they would cross 85 south and they replied they would; however they were already at that point and in conflict with the other aircraft. I called traffic asked them to report out of FL350 and no loss of separation resulted. Where I show 85 south of YXU is not where they crossed. This is not the first time. Numerous aircraft over the last several years have missed the restrictions off of YXU. This leads me to believe that either our map miss represents where YXU is from our boundary or there is a problem with DME off of YXU.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: ZOB Controller described a conflict event when an issued crossing restriction was missed; the reporter noting this NAVAID DME dependant restriction is often missed; questioning the DME and/or RADAR display accuracy.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 30
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was landing in ZZZ after a personal/training flight in the local area.  I called 13 miles out and was told to enter the left downwind for RWYXX.  I reported midfield left downwind for RWYXX and was cleared to land RWYXX.  I turned base and lined up on RWYXY.  As I noticed my mistake; the Controller cleared me to land on RWYXY - which I did rather than maneuvering back to the final for the parallel RWYXX.  There wasn't any traffic around on either final.Contributions to my mistake were 1) really gusty strong winds - very bumpy.  The wind blew me wide on my downwind/base to final turns 2) I was complacent in checking the runway environment picture as I made the base to final turn 3) After the COVID-19 shutdown and winter; I am rusty and need to practice to get better proficiency.I'm going to improve my proficiency and work on complacency that has crept into my flying.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported lining up on final approach with a runway parallel to the assigned runway. Cited as contributing were weather conditions and a lack of recent proficiency flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying an aircraft with the known Collins systems error; we received the expected FMS DR message on the ground that remained after takeoff. However; the message did not resolve; as expected; and became a DR EXCEEDS 5 MIN (yellow) message about the time we noticed the map display did not match our view out the window nor our (advisory only) own-ship display on the iPad Jepp application. We attempted to resolve the issue by referencing information in the QRH (not much guidance); cycling the AUTO mode of the navigation system; and manually selecting/tuning VOR/DMEs for position fixing. Nothing seemed to resolve our position error and we could not tune; identify; or monitor NAVAIDs in 'green needles.' As the Captain (Pilot Monitoring) reached for the mic switch to notify ATC; we received the dreaded call from Center inquiring as to where we were going. We advised of our loss of navigation capability and requested vectors to our next fix while we determined a course of action.  Discussion with Dispatch was difficult via both ACARS and AIRINC (everyone reminded us we could fly in 'green needles' with the Collins problem despite our efforts to explain that we had lost such ability). The Captain; after requesting input from me (i.e. good CRM); decided to divert to ZZZ because it was along our route and close to our current position; it had more options to accommodate passengers; and it had MX support. We received vectors for the remainder of the flight culminating with a visual approach; requesting a runway with PAPIs for vertical guidance; and landed without incident. After a long taxi; due to ZZZ ramp congestion; we parked at the gate; deplaned the passengers; and gave the jet to MX.  With a tail swap; we continued with some of the passengers to ZZZ1. Unknown MX problem caused degraded navigation capability.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported experiencing navigation errors due to aircraft equipment malfunction.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NEW.Airport, LA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D NEW
ATC / advisory: Tower NEW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from the east assigned 36R by LC (Local Control.) A flight of 4 was inbound for the overhead maneuver 36L. The controller working LC called the flight traffic out to Aircraft X; but misidentified their landing runway as 18L. Being CIC (Controller In Charge) as well as GC (Ground Control); I pointed out the mistake. LC keyed up and said 'Correction; that's 36L.' I knew this was ambiguous and watched final in case Aircraft X misunderstood and lined up for the wrong runway. When the last flight aircraft joined final for 36L out of the overhead; I thought it might be Aircraft X because he was still distant and also a low wing aircraft. When I asked LC if it was Aircraft X lined up for the wrong runway; he replied that it was not. I then turned my attention to briefing the next controller for GC and CIC. A bit later; I found out that during the briefing Aircraft X did in fact line up for the wrong runway after the flight landed; and had initiated a go around because LC had placed another aircraft on the runway in front of him.Despite knowing the situation required extra attention; I trusted that LC would watch and handle it after I brought attention to the possibility. I could have delayed the briefing and monitored the situation through its end. However; as a tower team member responsible for several other areas of the operation; I also feel there are limits to the amount attention that can or should be given to other positions. I did have a conversation with that controller afterward and pointed out where the ambiguity came from.




Synopsis: NEW Tower Controller reported that due to transmission ambiguity an aircraft lined up for the incorrect runway; causing a potential runway incursion; and go-around.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Cargo Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach the cockpit and flight attendant crew heard and felt a loud bang that came from under the flight deck.  It happened several times when we descended.  We guessed it was something loose in the cargo holds.  After we landed we had the ramp and mechanic look in the cargo area and they determined that a pallet was locked down on one side and that pallet was sliding and banging against the bulkhead; the ground crew didn't see any damage to the airplane.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a cargo pallet was improperly secured causing an occasional banging sound in flight.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On a flight from ZZZ- ZZZ1; due to turbulence reports; we had initially planned on flying the first 30 minutes in the mid-teens. After hearing several traffic reports and asking ATC about ride reports; we decided to climb to an altitude of 37;000 feet. (ATC reported light to moderate chop through FL260 and better above.) Passing through 19;000 feet; we encountered severe turbulence. The autopilot disengaged and the aircraft rapidly accelerated from 300 knots to 320 knots while climbing at well over 5000 fpm. The aircraft was shaking; rolling and at times; momentarily non-responsive. Passing through FL260; we exited the turbulence and resumed a normal flight path. (I do not believe that we ever exceeded any aircraft limitations or ATC clearance). After verifying that the aircraft was performing properly and that there were no injuries onboard; we contacted Dispatch and decided to continue to ZZZ1. We landed in ZZZ1 without further incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported severe turbulence during climb to smooth altitude.