elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEMD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LEMD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Holding short of runway 36L in MAD; we were given line up and wait behind (not under stood Aircraft (AC)). None of us understood the clearance; so my 1st Officer asked for clarification: 'Understand line up and wait behind AC currently on the runway.' The controller answered affirmative.We began taxing on the taxiway that leads up to the end of the runway and the controller said 'hold your position'. We had only moved about 100 feet so we stopped and set the brakes. The controller then said that we were number 4 to line up behind a white [aircraft] across the runway opposite of us. Number 4 Line up and wait! Really? I've never heard a clearance like that. Obviously the language barrier was definitely a big factor here. We waited for 3 AC to take off and then made a normal takeoff.


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


Synopsis: An aircrew received non-standard; ambiguous instructions from the Tower Controller.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We experienced a malfunction of the ice protection system; both cowl and wing; after departing GSO. While we were investigating this malfunction; ATC advised that we would soon be receiving a reroute of our course. A short time later; ATC issued the reroute (probably assuming we were ready to copy since we had been advised it was forthcoming). As the non-flying pilot; I was not ready to copy but the reroute seemed simple enough to me that it was not an issue. The controller phonetically spelled the fixes but I was busy with the ice protection issue. I heard 'Direct Collins; PXT PAATS arrival' and entered 'COLNS' in the FMS as the first fix and; sure enough; it appeared on the MFD. Almost immediately after this; the alert controller asked if we were going to 'COLIN' and gave us a heading while we corrected the error. There were no TCAS alerts or any traffic observed in the area. We never got that far off course thanks to the controller.I accept responsibility for the error. The first thing I plan to do is slow down when I know I am distracted by any issue and assure I am totally clear on the clearance. However; I would also like to comment on the fact that this type of error has been encountered by other crews in other locations (I believe there was a recent communication of confusion between similar fixes in NY and DCA). It would help trap errors such as this if fixes in close geographic proximity didn't share the same name with different spelling. Otherwise; crews lose the ability to self-diagnose the error.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of being occupied with a minor problem and having ATC issue a reroute. Pilot did not write clearance down and entered it from memory into the FMS. Pilot put in incorrect waypoint and aircraft deviated slightly. ATC corrected asked if they were going to COLIN and gave them a heading. Pilot corrected the error.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The mission was to test the airplane after annual inspection. After an extensive preflight of about 45 min; everything looked good. Got into cockpit started engine; talked to Ground Control and taxied to run-up area. Did a through run-up using checklist and all appeared well. Taxied to runway hold line and called Tower. I put myself on very high alert.I was cleared for takeoff and nudged the throttle to taxi onto the runway. The throttle did not respond. (I did check there were no brakes on.) Pushed in the throttle again and WOOOO. That got action; too much in fact. When I went to retard the throttle it would not budge. It appeared to me that there was too much power to make decent turn onto the runway (about 90 deg.) so I let it go onto the grass while wrestling with the throttle. A high power turn is not safe in a three wheeler. I did manage to retard the throttle; told the Tower I had a stuck throttle and I taxied back to the runway. When I got lined I exercised the throttle more and there was no problem. When testing an airplane the tester does need to be on a higher alert than normal for things to go sideways.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported a sticking throttle led to a runway excursion.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Established on the PINNG1 Arrival into PHX; approaching the BRDEY intersection; descending through approximately 16;000 feet; ABQ Center alerted us to VFR traffic at our 11 o'clock position; at approximately 14;500 feet. Initially; we were unable to acquire the traffic visually; and we monitored TCAS; expecting that; because of the proximity and geometry; the traffic would trigger a TCAS TA or RA.Although a TCAS TA/RA wasn't triggered; we visually acquired the traffic and monitored as the aircraft transitioned across our flight path from left to right while we continued our descent through 14;500 feet. ABQ Center informed the other aircraft they had a 737 (us) at their 7 o'clock position. We didn't hear a response from the other aircraft; we discovered later that the other aircraft was not on our frequency.We watched as parachute jumpers exited the aircraft in very close proximity to our aircraft; and the arrival corridor. Although I hesitate to estimate the distance; the jumpers were close enough to our aircraft that we could easily see the jumper's limbs.Because the jumpers were in such close proximity; I immediately asked the Controller if it was standard procedure to allow parachute jumping so close to an arrival corridor. The Controller responded in a very matter of fact manner that it was not unusual. From reviewing the ATC recording; the closest point of approach from our aircraft to the other aircraft at the 'jumpers away' call (last jumper exited the aircraft) was 1.2 miles; with the jumper aircraft 2;000 feet above our aircraft. When jumpers first started exiting the aircraft; we were closer than 1.2 miles.Both my First Officer and I strongly agree that conducting parachute jumping operations in such close proximity to other aircraft - and an arrival corridor is extremely hazardous. Discussion with the ABQ Center after the flight revealed that PHX area jumping operators have been 'a problem' and it's not the first time there has been a conflict with jumpers and other aircraft.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported he was uncomfortable with the distance to a skydiver aircraft and jumpers on the PINNG1 arrival into PHX.
Date: 201712
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working aircraft with fellow Airframe and Powerplant technician. Aircraft was a redelivery brought on the gate by the ramp crew. After I completed my walk around I asked the ramp crew lead if they were going to put ground power on the aircraft. He told me they were going to leave the APU on. I informed him that the APU was off and that once they hooked up ground power I would start the APU. Several minutes later; I heard the APU start. We went on board and found the flight crew onboard. I asked the captain if he started the APU and he said Yes; the MECHANICS told him its fine. When I informed him that we were the mechanics and it was the RAMP crew he had talked to; he got very upset and said they told him they were mechanics.The flight crew commented that they were not familiar with bringing power onto a dead aircraft and relied on the fact they thought they were talking to mechanics. It`s confusing enough that the ramp team is wearing orange vests with 'Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMT) ' logos on them and going into the cockpits; but when they identify themselves as 'Mechanics' to the flight crews; that`s crossing a very dangerous line.[My] suggestion [is that] Ramp crew needs to stop wearing AMT [orange vests] as their designation. Aircraft Ramp Team is confusing to flight crews. They think they are talking to Aircraft Maintenance Technicians. There should also be serious penalties for ramp personal who lie to flight crews. This could have serious flight safety implications.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the flight crew mistakenly identified the ramp personnel as maintenance technicians.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Electric Starter
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Inspection Authority
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: The installation instructions for the PMA (Parts Manufacturer Approval) approved Sky-Tec 122NL starter does not address the lack of clearance between the oil cooler and the starter wire terminal. The terminal chaffed a hole in the oil cooler; causing an oil leak in flight followed by smoke in the cockpit and an immediate return to the airport. There were no injuries or damage to the aircraft other than the oil cooler. This starter is not a direct replacement for the PA-28-140 as listed in the PMA and is also listed this way with [the] parts seller. Neither the Piper maintenance manual nor the manufacurers instructions address this issue.




Synopsis: Technician with inspection authority reported an alternate starter caused an oil leak due to insufficient clearance between the oil cooler and starter power terminal. This caused an oil leak and air turn back and emergency landing.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on approach vectors for Runway 4L at JFK in visual clear conditions. The Approach Controller notified us of a heavy aircraft on approach for 4R. Our vector would place us in a position to cross the wake of the heavy aircraft. Unfortunately I cannot remember specifically what our approach clearance was however I believe that we descended into the wake remnant area of the heavy aircraft. I don't recall encountering wake turbulence but I do know we were advised of the possibility. Unfortunately I do not recall the approach clearance specifics but it is possible that I read back acceptance of a clearance that did not involve an altitude clearance limit and thus violated that limit.




Synopsis: E170 flight crew member reported a wake turbulence encounter and a possible excursion from cleared altitude on arrival into JFK.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training a student in the local ZZZ area (ZZZ). After completing training maneuvers [XX] miles east of ZZZ we returned to ZZZ for touch and go landings. After the 2nd landing we climbed to [an] upwind leg. The Tower Controller was talking to me and another aircraft in the pattern. He gave an instruction to the other aircraft which was doing another touch and go. I heard the Controller say extend upwind he will call the crosswind turn. At the time I made a quick comment correcting my student on his climb speed. I believed the Controller was talking to the other aircraft. I proceeded to make a normal left crosswind turn and continue a normal traffic pattern. As I was on downwind the Controller advised me I should have been on crosswind. I apologized and informed him I didn't realize that instruction was for us. ZZZ has been working with minimum staffing due the pandemic. A single Controller handles three positions Clearance Delivery; Ground Control; and Tower. With this in mind I would've chosen to do touch and go landings at an airport with less traffic. I will be sure to be cautious about this fact until air traffic and controller staffing goes back to normal.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported thinking Tower instructions for them were for another aircraft resulting in a heading deviation. Reporter cited Tower staffing issues due the COVID-19 pandemic as a contributing factor.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action

Narrative: We were climbing through FL295 when we received a VNAV disconnect message. I looked at my flight instruments and noticed my airspeed was falling and crosschecked with my First Officer's instruments; which were normal. While performing the memory items and checklist for Airspeed Unreliable; we received an aural 'airspeed low' message; an IAS Disagree flag; and the EEC's transitioned to soft alternate mode. We completed the EEC Alternate Mode Checklist and the EEC's were transitioned to Hard Mode. We then completed the ALT Disagree Checklist.When we leveled off; I notified ATC of our reduced altimeter and airspeed indicator abilities. After consulting with Dispatch and Maintenance Control; Maintenance recommended a return to our departure airport. We joined the STAR back to the airport where landed without event. My flight instruments returned to normal at about FL180. This aircraft had history of pitot static problems within the previous week. I did perform a thorough review of the logbook prior to flight and was aware of its history. A phone call to Dispatch and Maintenance Control might have given me more insight to the problem at hand.




Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew consulted with Maintenance and opted to return to their departure airport following receipt of multiple pitot static related anomalies.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent into ATL; we were given holding instructions; to reduce speed; and hold (on either the LGC or HONIE intersection) radial; as published at FL180. Due to a low altimeter setting; less than 29.92; I queried my First Officer (FO) to ask ATC to reaffirm our holding altitude. After doing so; and with numerous aircraft receiving clearances; the ATC controller; seeming somewhat agitated; restated that we were instructed to hold at FL180. I instructed my FO that this was an unacceptable FL due to the altimeter setting and to advise ATC. Unfortunately; due to numerous arrivals and simultaneous ILS PRM approaches in use; we were not able to advise ATC of the unacceptable clearance. At this time; we were descending on the arrival; and entering the hold. Slowing; and turning while entering the hold; alpha protection started climbing on our PFDs. Noticing this; my FO called out 'airspeed'. I responded to his callout; looked at my altimeter; believing I was passing through 18;700 and called for 'flaps one'. He checked his altimeter and positioned the flap handle in flaps one position. At this time; knowing the max flaps extension altitude being 20;000 feet; we both believed and confirmed that we were within aircraft limitations.Although aircraft saturation and weather were a significant factor; what appeared to be an ATC controller unaware that FL180 is unusable with a local altimeter setting of less than 29.92; added to the confusion; not only in communications; saturated approach control frequency; but the workload in the cockpit of transitioning from the descent phase to the approach phase. ATC must limit speed restrictions in the flight levels to nothing less than 250kts IAS.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reports being given holding instructions at FL180 with a low altimeter setting making FL180 unusable. The distraction of attempting to clarify with ATC results in low airspeed and the flaps being extended above 20;000 feet.