elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEE.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZJX
Second aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On approach to landing at my home lake I observed traffic parallel to my position.  The traffic; a larger single engine float plane; was also visible on my FIS-B.  I was over water and the other seaplane was over land. As I descended I noted the airplane turned to the east at low altitude away from the lake and over an adjoining swamp. Since other seaplanes commonly land on the lake I decided to land into the light wind close to the undeveloped shoreline.  This would permit the other seaplane unobstructed access to the main body of the lake. As I landed on the water and was in step taxi mode the other seaplane suddenly appeared out of a slough on the water and on a collision course.  I immediately turned to avoid the aircraft and the other pilot applied power; continued straight ahead; and departed the lake.  The two aircraft were within 100 ft of each other on the water at high speed taxi and in direct conflict. It had not occurred to me that the larger float plane would use the short; narrow slough to land on the water.  The slough is a posted waterway prohibiting entry due to the presence of endangered species.  Further; the slough is on a local canoe route in common use; particularly on a weekend.  It is a tight area for a large float plane to operate in. When I contacted the local seaplane operator he indicated it probably wasn't his aircraft involved; though he did say that the slough was sometimes used because it is 'scenic'.  I explained that landing there is prohibited by Florida statute and it is posted.  He said he was unfamiliar and would not use it in the future.




Synopsis: Pilot reported  missing a taxiing seaplane that landed in a prohibited area by 100 feet.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMSD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Clearance was ENEKO MARUX V4 SJD.  While descending into MMSD; we were on V4 between ENEKO and MARUX; then after MARUX; given clearance to descend to 6000. Approximately 20 miles from the SJD VOR; we were cleared the VOR DME-2 Rwy 16 approach.  The FMS was programmed from MARUX to the D11.0 fix; instead of including the the IAF (which is the DME 15.0 fix).  The approach plate is confusing; and led us to believe we were cleared to descend to 3600 when we had to wait until the IAF; which was not programmed correctly into the FMS.  ATC informed us that we were descending early and below his MVA.  He cleared us to level off; and continue on a visual approach.  We were in VMC conditions the entire time.  The two aircraft arriving before us were given headings to intercept the approach; and the controller was very difficult to understand; and was unintelligible at times.  I was the pilot flying and this was also my first time flying into Cabo; as well as my only international flight since I completed training. Those factors combined with unclear approach charts (especially depicting the transition from the encounter structure to approach); as well as the controller stating 'cleared for VOR DME-2 Rwy 2 Approach' without saying 'VIA MARUX'; led us to omit the IAF during our briefing and approach.  I believe this could have been avoided by having better awareness about confusing which waypoint is the initial approach fix.  Something as simple as giving the IAF; D25; and the D11 fixes names would make the charts and radio communications less confusing.  Also; communicating to the crews that this approach clearance can be easily misunderstood.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported descending early on the VOR-DME-2 Runway 16 approach to MMSD; citing chart confusion and poor ATC communications as contributing.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Assist during a very complex moderately busy session. There were many west end repositioning aircraft that Ground was suffering through including arrivals that did not have gates available for a long time; some up to an hour. This created a complex operation getting departures out in between staggered arrivals. Meanwhile; Ground was struggling with getting aircraft in and out of the General Aviation ramp. There was also a lot of flow in effect for fixes northeast of the Bay Area; as well as CFR(Call for Release) for [multiple airports]. There were numerous aircraft that were crossed over Runways 1 to take their delay on Taxiway Lima.Local Control departed Aircraft X off of on the SID; and shortly after Aircraft Y; also on the same SID; off of an intersecting runway from a taxiway. All of this coordinated; and masterfully worked based on the picket fence finals we had been receiving for quite some time. There had also been another taxiway departure preceding Aircraft Y; so it was not a one surprise departure going into the TRACON sector. The Departure controller turned Aircraft X west for an unidentifiable reason; and they ended up paralleling; and losing separation with; Aircraft Y; unless of course they had the foresight to get Aircraft X to see Aircraft Y; which would have been a very high skilled controller maneuver.TRACON does nothing but complain about how we run our straight out departures versus turning SIDs to the point of looking like petulant children on the playground who are not able to be satisfied period. This highlights the complete and utter disrespect for not only a straight out departure being scanned off; but also NOT protecting for the unexpected missed approach/go around; that would require another really high skilled maneuver by the Local Controller to see the need for visual separation prior to shipping them to departures.




Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller observed the Departure Controller turn an aircraft into another departing aircraft from an intersecting runway.
Date: 201909
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Lighting Systems
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The aircraft had maintenance done for the Captain's System Annunciator Panel. When we were in cruise flight; the center fuel tanks were empty and the correct Master Caution Warning light illuminated. On the Captain's System Annunciator Panel; we however saw a 'Doors' annunciation in place of the expected 'Fuel' annunciation. The Captain's Annunciator Panel had incorrectly been replaced with a First Officer Annunciator Panel three days prior.Maintenance had installed the wrong part. Several pilots missed the error on previous days. The lights were working; it can easily be missed that the annunciations were wrong. Maintenance supervisors need to emphasize attention to detail to their mechanics. Pilots; including myself; need to look more carefully at the annunciations; in this case during multiple 'recall' checks.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported Maintenance installing incorrect System Annunciator Panel; causing aircraft to fly several flights in an unairworthy condition.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Ground
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to takeoff; I [initiated and the] First Officer set the power. At the 80 KT call I saw a helicopter to the right of the runway [drifting] toward my runway. As it began to cross my runway I called abort and aborted the takeoff.  The helicopter pilot said he was sorry. The Tower Controller said the helicopter was cleared to takeoff and stay west of our runway. However that pilot didn't catch the 'stay west' part. So; he flew east right across my take off path.Beware of helicopters.


Second narrative: I was Ground Control; Flight Data and CIC [Controller In Charge] in the Tower at the time of the occurrence. A helicopter on the FBO ramp; was requesting to depart east. I informed the Local Controller of the helo's request and continued with my duties of making ATIS. I looked up to see the helo departing to the east and the CRJ aborting his takeoff.I did not hear the clearance exchange between the Tower and the departing traffic therefore; I can't say for sure what I would recommend for phraseology; etc. However; I do think that having a standalone CIC may have helped. This would have been a person that could have been listening to the frequency and caught the helo departing across the runway.


Synopsis: A departing CRJ-200 flight crew rejected their takeoff just after reaching the high speed regime when a departing helicopter drifted over their runway.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon taxi into the north ramp; a fuel truck was traveling across the ramp; from our right to left while we were moving with the taxi light on. It appeared that the driver did not even look; and was cutting across the vehicle service road.Furthermore; upon taxiing into [our spot]; the initial marshaller was standing very far off of the centerline I was taxiing on. He was almost in the safety area of the parking spot instead of the taxi centerline where he should have been. He was also standing far too close for me to properly overshoot the turn into my spot. I had to come almost to a complete stop to wait for him to back up. Meanwhile the marshaller I was handed off to was signaling for me to turn in far too early. I ended up having to turn earlier than I would have liked; because the first marshaller would have ended up too close to the right engine as we made the left turn into parking. There were aircraft parked on either side of us as well; making it more critical to properly overshoot. With the assistance of the First Officer (FO); we verified we were clear; and turned very slowly into the spot. This resulted in the need for thrust on the right engine; where the initial marshaller was standing closer than normal. For obvious reasons; this is a very unsafe situation. This is not the first time I have experienced non-standard marshaling in [this airport]. The fact that there are frequent issues with this is prompting me to begin to report every event (which I should have done in the first place) as this appears to be a systemic issue. I have made verbal reports to the [Company] staff about this; but whether or not my concerns were addressed is unclear.Finally; what is contributing to me making [reports] on these issues is the fact that one of the mechanics made a remark that this is 'business as usual' now with all of the new staff. The apparent lack of supervision and/or training is severely increasing the risk of aircraft damage; or worse; an injury.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported several deviations from ramp procedures during taxi into gate led to an unsafe situation.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At the beginning of descent anti-ice was placed on; and thrust was reduced to idle.  The First Officer noticed the air mix valve on right pack going to full cold.  He then noticed that the air mix valve on the left pack going to full hot.  He tried to control the right pack by utilizing manual control with no effect.  I queried if there was perhaps a pack trip although none was indicated.  At that time; the Cabin Altitude Warning Horn sounded.  We immediately donned oxygen masks and established communication.  We initiated a rapid descent to FL200 and requested 10;000 feet with ATC.  That was approved.  We were asked if we required assistance.  I answered in the negative and no emergency was declared.  I did state that we were having difficulty maintaining cabin pressurization and that we would like to be cleared directly to [destination].  That was approved.  We ran the Cabin Altitude Warning/Abnormal Pressurization Checklist followed by the Emergency Descent Checklist.  The passenger oxygen masks did not deploy as the cabin altitude hovered around 12;700 feet and never exceeded 14;000 feet.  At a cabin altitude of 10;000 feet; the masks were removed and we proceeded without further event.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew reported loss of cabin pressure in descent; possibly associated with an unannuciated pack trip. Cabin altitude never exceeded 14;000 feet and the flight landed without further incident.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I did the landing with autobrakes 1. It was a normal landing and actually a fairly smooth touchdown I remember. I let the autobrakes and reverse slow us down to 70 kts; after which I started to apply light braking at first; then medium braking to make [the] taxiway after hearing there was traffic on short final. I got below 10 kts and started to make the turn to the right when I felt a little weird vibration and 'shiver' that seemed to be on the left side; but it went away after I made the turn and I never felt anything unusual after that all the way to the blocks. It pulled a little to the left but not anything more than I've experienced with other airplanes during taxi.We were shocked when; after blocking in and opening the door; a mechanic asked if something happened in the flight and then told me we had blown 4 tires. We went down to look and I took some pictures. I talked to two mechanics there; one of which I recognized and who is very experienced. I explained the same as above; and he didn't seem surprised and seemed to imply the tires had already been a bit worn and close to being needed changed anyway.I've never had something like this in my entire career and my First Officer; is a very experienced pilot who was also surprised and never suspected we had blown tires. I have used heavier braking in the past and know what it feels like when the antiskid activates; and I was nowhere close to that here. I actually went back to the cockpit and recorded the brake temps on the left side. They were 0 for tires 1 and 6; and 1 for tires 2 and 5 (similar to right side). The blown tires were 2 and 5. My only thought was that maybe somehow the brakes on the left side locked up momentarily before I made the turn and caused them to skid and blow? I since learned Maintenance found a wiring issue.




Synopsis: B767-200 Captain reported discovering at the gate that 4 tires had failed; possibly related to a fault in the brake system.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AEG.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D AEG
ATC / advisory: Tower AEG
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: My primary student and I were practicing takeoffs and landings at AEG and Runway 17 was in use. There was also a helicopter doing pattern work; including stop and go's and hovering over the runway. We shared the airspace. My student and I were assigned by Tower to make a right pattern and the  helicopter was assigned doing a left pattern on Runway 17.Everything worked well. We were on final and wanted to do another touch-and-go. We kept the right wind correction inputs because there was a crosswind coming from the east; from 130 degrees. We noticed that the helicopter was waiting on taxiway Bravo; which is to the left of Runway 17. Tower had advised him to do so and wait for us before they would be able to takeoff again. We touched down on the centerline; cleaned up the aircraft and added full power for takeoff. We started our takeoff roll and right opposite of where the helicopter was sitting with his rotor blades turning; our aircraft was; in one violently push; forced to the left of the runway; off the runway pavement; into the adjacent grass area with takeoff speed. At first; we briefly reduced power. My student and I both had right rudder input but the pushing left force was too strong and we taxied over the grass. At first; we reduced power but within 2-3 seconds; we reacted; added full power and I took over the controls; and did a go-around; and was able to get back in the air without hitting anything; and no stall horn coming on; even when our airspeed at first was pretty low. The Tower advised us to make a left pattern; which I acknowledged.After this scary experience; we executed a full stop. I called Tower and asked them if they had noticed anything. NO; nothing. I explained to them briefly what had happened and hopefully made them realize; how unpredictable it is for a small single engine aircraft to do any maneuvers next to a helicopter with running rotor blades. The aircraft has no damage at all and my student and I are fine.




Synopsis: Cessna instructor pilot reported encountering rotor wash from a helicopter operating nearby that resulted in a loss of control and runway excursion.