elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft was in cruise at FL270 with the APU shut down and the APU bleed valve closed. A descent was given by ATC and; as the aircraft was passing through FL260; we received an APU BLEED LEAK - ECAM caution message. There were no action items associated with the ECAM or the AOM or QRH since the APU was already shut down. While passing through approximately FL180 the ECAM indication extinguished. A normal approach and landing were made to Runway 35L. We taxied to parking; the aircraft was secured; and a logbook entry made for the APU Bleed Leak message. After exiting the aircraft Maintenance met me at the bottom of the stairs. The Mechanic proceeded to show me indications of charring around the APU inlet door. At no time did we have any indications of an APU fire.


Second narrative: No additional information was included in the second narrative.


Synopsis: Dispatched with the APU deferred inoperative and the APU bleed valve closed; the flight crew of an A300 were perplexed but unfazed by an illogical APU BLEED LEAK ECAM message for which; predictably; no appropriate procedures were published.  Upon landing at their destination and deplaning a Mechanic pointed out charring around the APU inlet door.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
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: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the Visual [Runway] XXR approach into ZZZ. Cleared for the approach about 5 miles out; and given a heading 090 to join the localizer. We joined the localizer and got a TA and noticed another RJ (Regional Jet) headed around 150 degrees to join the localizer for [Runway] XXL; which wasn't going to be a factor. We were never left of the [Runway] XXR localizer at any point. We caught the glide slope and headed down while configuring. At this point we received a RA that the [Runway] XXL RJ had blown through the localizer and was right over the top of us; about 300 feet of vertical separation. Captain was flying; he disconnected the AP (Autopilot) and flew the breakout procedure. I told ZZZ Tower we had a RA and he was swamped today so he initially wanted us to go around; to which I said we had flown the breakout and were established on the approach - going around and flying his instructions would've led to a second RA since we were instructed to climb right into that jet that just flew over the top of us. Tower changed his mind and gave us [Runway] XXR landing clearance. ZZZ ATC workload was extremely high and the [Runway] XXL RJ didn't intercept the localizer at all; nor were they aware of the traffic around them (us).High ATC workload and neighboring jet on the other approach had low SA (Situational Awareness).ZZZ workload review and talk to the crew who blew through the [Runway] XXL localizer and crossed into us.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported flying the breakout procedure in response to an RA triggered by an aircraft on approach on the parallel runway that had overshot the localizer and was directly overhead.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower Initiated Rejected Takeoff at 10kts due to aircraft landing on crossing runway. Low speed abort 10 kts.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff when Tower cancelled their clearance because of a conflict on a crossing runway.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IOW.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: CTAF IOW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was on short final; communicating on CTAF. At around half of a mile out from touchdown; during my final traffic scan; I saw a taildragger (no bigger than a Piper Cub or Cessna 150) cut me off. I noticed him flying right towards me on a quick downwind to base transition. I had been paying attention to the traffic on the radio. There was a plane that landed in front of me (but never mentioned it was a flight of two aircraft) that I was looking for because he was just exiting runway 25; the one in use. As soon as I saw the aircraft closing in on me; I initiated a go around with a hard turn to the right to get out of his way. It's hard to guess how close I was when I saw him; but I was able to clearly read his tail number. Upon landing; I did confront him about this and asked if he was communicating his intentions on CTAF; just in case he had an emergency or didn't know his radio wasn't working. He informed me that he wasn't required to have a radio in this airspace (which is true) and that he didn't have one. I firmly believe that in 2015; a radio is almost a must. Considering handhelds are cheaper than they have ever been; or so it seems; this could have been avoided if the pilot of the other aircraft had a radio. There were a lot of risk factors on this day in particular. The weather was gorgeous; aside from some gusty winds; and there were at least 3-4 aircraft in the pattern at the time. On a beautiful VFR day; people go flying. I was scanning for traffic; thankfully. If I hadn't; I'm pretty sure I would have been in the news.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reports that; while maneuvering in the traffic pattern and communicating his intentions on the CTAF frequency; he was cut off by another aircraft which was not radio equipped. This conflict resulted in a go-around.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: ATC taxi clearance stated 'Taxi to Runway 31C; via Taxiway Tango; Echo 2 cross Runway 31R.' We commenced this taxi and were in-line behind [an] aircraft on Echo 2. After about two minutes; an aircraft on final for Runway 31R was sent around by the Control Tower. I immediately queried Tower and stated we had been cleared to cross Runway 31R. They then had us transition to Echo 3 and still hold short of Runway 31C. The Captain complied and was holding short of Runway 31C. At some point; he queried the Tower and said despite being as far forward as possible; it still appeared as if the aircraft tail was still on Runway 31R. I could not see this from my vantage point. We were subsequently cleared for takeoff. At some point the Tower stated. 'No worries on that crossing; that was on us;' meaning it was an ATC mistake.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported they were cleared to cross the runway; but Tower conducted a go-around to landing aircraft due to tail of aircraft incurring on landing runway.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The student had previous tail-wheel experience; but hadn't flown in years. The private pilot flew from the front seat and the instructor flew from the back. He had logged [a few] hours of instruction with me and [over ten] takeoffs and landings prior to the incident flight. I judged that he was doing well considering the length of time since he had last flown.We were conducting a training flight in a Champion 7EC Champ. The wind was calm to 20 degrees crosswind at 4 knots. We departed the airport to work on some warm-up maneuvers before returning to practice 3-point landings on runway XX. The student completed 1 successfully to a full stop and on his second landing; shortly upon touchdown; the plane departed to the left side of the runway in a ground loop. There were no injuries.Based on my inspection of the aircraft; the damage does not rise to the level of an accident as defined by NTSB Part 830; but the FAA has not made a final determination to date.Prior to the flight before engine start; I stood outside the plane with the student in position in the front seat and noticed that his feet were too high on the pedals and partially on the toe brakes. I cautioned him to move his feet down so that his heels were on the kick plates and to be careful to keep off the brakes when taking off or landing. Though the touchdown was straight; the plane immediately went left off the runway. Because of the immediacy of the runway excursion upon touchdown I suspect that the student had inadvertently moved a foot up onto the toe brakes. To prevent a similar occurrence in the future on final approach; I will add 'Brakes' (meaning feet off brakes) to the audible checklist I use: 'Airspeed/Obstacles/Touchdown Zone/Brakes'.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported a runway excursion during a training flight.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Mx issue. I cannot state what the malfunction cause is; however I can state that its occurrence was not shocking. This aircraft has had this malfunction nearly every flight segment it has flown since the issue first occurred. Yesterday when I had this issue I had spoken with mx. Eventually I got ahold of mx control and stated I would NOT fly the AC until [the] Duty Manager at least came out and inspected it. This morning before we departed the issue happened again. Duty Manager came out and performed some directed mx. We departed and the issue occurred yet again. Climbing out we received another main pitch trim EICAS warning. Again we ran the QRH and again we coordinated with dispatch. Again we [advised ATC] and again had the trucks rolled for our arrival. I say again because not 24 hours before we had this exact malfunction on this exact aircraft. Simple; if there is a known record of a repeat malfunction; ferry the aircraft to a maintenance base for a proper inspection before putting passengers on the aircraft. Do NOT continue to limp an AC along 'hoping' the issue will resolve itself. Further; a safety culture needs to be developed in the Operations Control that puts safety and maintenance above performance and completion.




Synopsis: EMB-145XR pilot reported that a 'Pitch Trim' EICAS warning has appeared during several flights on the same aircraft.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned a B737-9 with no system. Staged were two carts of cargo that showed that they weighed 522 lbs each. When preparing to load one cart; I went to load it and found that the first box was too heavy for me to lift [or] move. I had others on my crew to assist me on trying to get it on the belt. The three of us could not get the piece to move. I questioned the weight of the piece. Then we tried the other piece in the cart and ended up with the same results. After scratching our heads for a few and trying different approaches we gave up on that cart and tried the second cart that also showed in the staging 522 lbs. One box weighed about 100 lbs and the other was a similar box that was in the first cart. Very heavy also. The placards on each piece showed that they were all in the same airway bill at 1044 lbs. There were also other placards on each piece that showed 474 kg. I don't believe that both carts were the same weight. I think that cargo just split the two carts by half and sent it out. As heavy as the three boxes were I [was] not confident that the 1044 total was even correct. Because of them being so heavy I wasn't willing to slide them on the floor of the aircraft and cause damage; [as it] would have put them close to the doors; one cart in the front and one cart in the back of the aircraft. This would have directly affected the weight and balance of the aircraft. We held them off because we couldn't move them and if we could the weights were suspect. There is no doubt in my mind that these pieces were not ran across a scale. The weight was just divided in half. My concern is how often do we send things out with cargo just split in half?




Synopsis: Ramp worker reported refusing to load boxes that were too heavy and noticed that the reported weights may have been incorrect.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: U08.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I checked the weather and received VFR flight following from Nellis Control. I remained east of the Nellis restricted areas throughout the flight. I was in the terminal phase of the flight when the winds began to pick up and were not as forecasted. There was a significant crosswind at ([my destination]) so I chose to divert to (U08). U08 does not have an ATIS and I was guessing the wind from the windsock and a departing helicopter that reported the wind as north at 25 knots. After overflying the field a few times I began to run low on fuel. The crosswind turned into a direct crosswind at 35 knots (exceeding aircraft limitations) and I began to run low on fuel. I made the decision to land diagonally across the taxiway; across the smooth gravel that is between the taxiway and the runway and ultimately onto Runway 31 at an angle. My GPS indicated that my groundspeed on the approach was approximately 17 knots and I rolled smoothly across the gravel to the runway. There was no damage to any of the runway environment or the aircraft. My ground roll was approximately 150 feet. In order to execute the landing safely I had to overfly a few structures that were not lined up with the runway...This may have startled residents of the town. I had already cancelled and switched from Nellis Control and my datalink weather and ATIS reports of all of the surrounding airports indicated significant crosswinds as well. I made the decision to not switch back to Nellis to declare an emergency because there would be no services they could provide to me at that point. There is a vast distance between airports with fuel on the east side of the Nellis Complex. In the future I will proceed down the west side where there are more options and airports with fuel.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported a low fuel condition; higher forecast crosswinds and the intentional landing in-between the taxiway and runway.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Altitude report deviation. Doing the approach ILS [Runway] XX; we were cleared by ATC to descend to 3;500 ft. We set 2;500 ft. by mistake in the altitude window during instructions. While descending ATC contacted us due to the mistake. We realized we began to correct the altitude again to 3;500 ft.; so ATC gave us again a clearance to stay at 2;500 ft. We continue the approach without any incident from present position.Instruction were for the approach to maintain heading and altitude; after that we were cleared for the approach for ILS [Runway] XX. At that time the wrong altitude was set in the altitude window and we didn't realize the error until ATC notified for the deviation.We started to climb immediately climbing to the correct altitude; but ATC asked to stay at the altitude we were of 2;500 ft. without any problem.


Second narrative: On approach for ILS [Runway] XX; ATC cleared us to descend to 3;500 ft. 2;500 ft. was mistakenly set in the altitude window when given our instructions. We descended to 2;500 ft. and ATC contacted us regarding the error. We started to correct our altitude to 3;500 ft. when ATC gave us a new clearance to remain at 2;500 ft. The ILS approach to [Runway] XX was executed without further incident.We received our instructions for the approach to maintain heading; altitude; and were cleared for the ILS [Runway] XX. During that moment the wrong altitude was placed in the altitude window and was not caught until ATC notified us of the deviation.As stated our reaction was to correct immediately by climbing to the appropriate altitude of 3;500 ft.; but we were given a new clearance to stay where we were at 2;500 ft.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported an excursion from assigned altitude occurred during the approach because they set the wrong altitude in the window.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When the PF (Pilot Flying) called 'Set Flaps Up Maneuvering Speed' the PM (Pilot Monitoring) reached for the flap handle initially then went to the MCP. The 'Set Flaps Up' part of the call seems to cause this improper action during high workload. 'Set Flaps Up' should be removed from the call. The call could be changed to 'Set Clean Maneuvering Speed' or something similar.




Synopsis: B737 Check Airman reported the aircraft checklist verbiage needs to be changed to avoid improper action.