elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was exiting Runway XX Left at Taxiway XX; and had not yet called. I reached out to give them taxi instructions and they asked if the instructions were for them. I assumed I either blocked them or they were transferring frequencies mid sentence; so I reissued the instructions - Taxi via XY to the ramp - as though it was their first call-up. The acknowledged and said they had not received a hand off from the Tower Controller. I told them all was good.A minute or two later; I observed the aircraft turning eastbound on Taxiway XY3 to join Taxiway XZ southbound. I reached out to them by call sign only; and they responded. I followed up with asking them where they were going. The pilot said they were going to the 'north line'; which is on the Ramp Tower apron. I advised them that Taxiway XY4 is the delineation of where the ramp begins and that is where I would have expected them to go to. They apologized and said they were looking for the north line and headed in there. We left it at that.During the slowdown; some crews are probably going to places they either have never been; or have not been to in some time. The only recommendation I can make is to ask; it is not like the frequency congestion would make asking a bad thing.




Synopsis: Ground Controller reported an airliner taxied in the wrong direction toward the ramp.
Date: 201708
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to this flight being planned there was an email concerning South America staffing changes. A sector was being closed. With comments that the flight had been moved to a sector monitored by the same desk; and that if the flight was delayed that action needed to be taken. This flight departed early. (Aircraft X is a very early departure; this may have led to the flight being omitted or the flight from the previous day being moved.)As the oncoming dispatcher; I was briefed by the dispatcher sitting at the desk I was assuming and the dispatcher on [a different] desk that was passing [two] sectors to [another] desk. The desk responsibility sheet was on the desk showing [four] sectors assigned to [one] desk. I added the sectors to my desk at sign in. I read my emails early in the shift and noted the comment that the flights had been moved. I noticed on the Aircraft Situation Display that there was a SVR turbulence PIREP over northeast Nicaragua; and noted that the report was made by a [Company] flight. I looked to see who was monitoring the flight and discovered the flight was unmonitored as it was assigned to [the closed] sector. I logged into the flight and saw that the flight had been attempting to report the turbulence and they were concerned there was no response from dispatch.If the flight had not encountered SVR turbulence we would not have known that this flight was not monitored. Aircraft X transited the area and would have been advised of the turbulence had a dispatcher been signed into the sector. The phones were not properly configured with the closure of the desks.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported a gap in operational coverage discovered when a flight provided a PIREP for severe turbulence that was not being monitored.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: Tower RIC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: [We] experienced significant localizer signal deviations on final approach to Runway 16. Subsequent MD-80 aircraft also reported same issue to ATC. [We] reported to ATC via radio and phone call. Uneventful stabilized approach and landing.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew reported a significant localizer signal deviation on final to RIC Runway 16 which was reported to ATC but did not disrupt their stabilized approach.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC told us to plan for the ILS19 circle to runway24 after the JAIKE3 Arrival to TEB. When we were 8.5 miles from the airport the controller asked if we were able to take a left downwind to runway24 and we complied with the heading instruction for the left downwind to runway24. After a couple seconds controller asked if we would like runway6; and gave us heading 090 to intercept the localizer; at this time we were at 2;000 feet. Since we were so close the controller added: fly direct TORBY and cleared for the visual approach to runway6. We were changing the FMS for the different runway but we were so close to the runway and ATC told us that we were supposed to cross DANDY at 1500 feet but we were cleared to TORBY for the visual and we were at 1800 feet. Everything happen so fast; but ATC changing our approach three times so close to the airport was the reason we did not comply with the altitude restriction.




Synopsis: Pilot reported failing to meet altitude restriction altitude after being cleared for a visual approach following two runway assignment changes.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL340 on autopilot; suddenly aircraft rolled up to 60 degrees of bank and began a descent in excess of 2;000 FT per minute before we could recover control. Altitude deviated down to FL330 with a subsequent recovery to FL340. [We] immediately advised Center of an autopilot hard over with the altitude deviation. Upon recovery; Center asked if we could maintain RVSM and we responded yes; but after further consideration decided that we should not continue in RVSM and requested a descent out of RVSM airspace. We were cleared to FL280 and continued to our filed destination without further incident. I wrote up the autopilot as INOP; canceled the remainder of the flights; spoke to our Maintenance; and deferred the autopilot to fly manually to home station at FL250; flying off autopilot. I am unaware of any traffic conflict at this time and was not advised by ATC that there had been a traffic conflict. The jet is now in maintenance (troubleshooting the problem).

Callback: The reporter stated that the aircraft's Mechanic determined the only component in the system which could cause an upset such as this would be the autopilot amplifier. That component was changed; the autopilot run continuously on the ground for a full day with no anomalies and so; deemed airworthy. The reporter has since flown the aircraft numerous flights with no problem.The upset developed very rapidly and resulted in a 4;000 FPM rate of descent. During the recovery G's were pulled; but not what he would consider excessive.



Synopsis: A Falcon 20 autopilot amplifier malfunctioned at FL340 which resulted in a rapid roll to 60 degrees; and a 1;000 FT altitude loss. The flight descended out of RVSM airspace for the remainder of the flight.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Collision Alert [CA] alarmed multiple times between Aircraft X and a target indicating beacon code [XXYY]. First alert occurred when Aircraft X was approximately ENM080050 at FL270. Aircraft is ADSB equipped. These alarms appeared to be conflicts between the aircraft's two transponders.These nuisance CAs occur multiple times each day; and have an additive desensitizing effect on controllers and CICs/FLMs (Controller in Charge/Frontline Manager). This leads to a potential reduction in response time to legitimate CAs. I recommend an analysis of our display and data processing systems to determine the cause of these spurious alerts; and applying software patches or equipment upgrades as necessary to resolve them.




Synopsis: FAI FLM (Frontline Manager) reported of collision alerts that are caused by the aircrafts ADS-B. FLM states there are multiple nuisance alarms due to aircraft equipped with ADS-B. FLM would like some type of a software upgrade or an equipment upgrade to stop the spurious alerts.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The taxi was short and slow as we had a wheels up time about 10 minutes away. We did notice a clicking or very slight knocking at our feet when the aircraft was in motion. We discussed it and then dismissed it. We ruled out the tiller as it wasn't being used. I also noticed no pulling of the steering. Upon takeoff clearance; the steering immediately pulled to the right. I corrected back to the center line. At this point it felt like a strong crosswind with no correction. Wind was calm. After correcting; it pulled again hard to the right and I aborted the takeoff. I'd estimate the speed at around 40 kts. This was not a sudden jerk; but something that became more pronounced with speed. We exited the runway; then taxied to the de-ice pad to troubleshoot and call Maintenance control. At this point the pulling to the right was much more pronounced; even at low speeds. Also; the steering was disengaging on taxi. The passengers were notified and everyone remained comfortable. There were no complaints. Water service was performed by the FAs while in the de-ice pad. After communication with Maintenance Control; we taxied back to gate to await maintenance to arrive. Again; the threat was the steering issue and we contained it the best we could.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff and returning to the gate for maintenance after experiencing nose wheel steering issues.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After V1 the First Officer and I noticed an odor that smelled wet; damp; musky; wet sock type of smell. This odor did not clear and remained strong throughout the duration of the flight. When we reached a safe altitude on departure; I contacted the Flight Attendant and asked if she smelled any odor or fumes. She replied positively. The FO and I requested priority handling and landed back in ZZZ. After landing; we taxied back to the gate. Speaking with the FA more after the emergency; she told us that there had been an odor during taxi and takeoff; with it increasing strongly on takeoff. The FA thought it was just her that smelled it and did not say anything; but confirmed she smelled the same odor mostly in the front to row 2A [I initially noticed] smell of fumes in cockpit and cabin. Requested priority handling; donned O2 mask; and landed in ZZZ. [My] suggestion is to emphasize in training to flight attendants if anything is out of the ordinary or unknown fumes are present to speak up and not be afraid to contact the flight deck in sterile if it may be a safety of flight issue.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a strong 'wet sock' type smell during takeoff resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During final segment of the landing flare; the enhanced callout system called for a Go-Around. We performed a go-around and returned to a second uneventful landing.Cause: System appears to have called for a go-around during a stable approach to landing.Suggestions: We need training on this system before we fly with it. I have little confidence this enhancement will not cause numerous and dangerous startle events near the ground for the aircrews.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported executing a go-around in response to an apparently erroneous warning from the callout system.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal taxi out and takeoff.  The First Officer was the flying pilot.  Captain checked in with Departure and read back a turn to heading 230.  Dialed 230 into the MCP heading window.  Heard the First Officer over radio chatter call to take priority.  Did so and locked out side stick on the First Officers side.  Landed safely over weight.  Emergency declared to get the longest runway.


Second narrative: I was flying. On climbout; I engaged AP1 and maintained runway heading. Soon after; we received a vector to heading 230. The heading knob was unresponsive; so I disconnedted the AP and used the stick to turn. The airplane did not turn. I called 'take priority' and the Captain did so; locking me out. We returned for a landing; which was uneventful.

Second callback: The reporter believes that the facts were correctly stated in his narrative but would have welcomed a chance to try controlling the aircraft again with his stick.  The Captain deemed the most prudent course to be returning for landing without returning control to the First Officer.

Synopsis: A319 Flight Crew experiences autopilot and side stick controller anomalies during climb out.  The autopilot is unresponsive to MCP heading inputs nor does the First Officer's side stick controller have any effect after the autopilot is disconnected.  Control is passed to the Captain and flight returns to departure airport for an uneventful over weight landing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When approaching spot 25 (old North line) the north ramp told us to request Mike Charlie as his area was busy.  The First Officer thought he was contacting ground to get the clearance (in hindsight; I think he had re-contacted inbound ramp).  The wording that was used lead both of us to believe we were cleared Mike Charlie.  It sounded like a clearance versus instructions to contact ground.  I didn't look down at the frequency but thought that we were cleared Mike Charlie to the North ramp.  So I proceeded Mike Charlie.The tower had me call on the phone and informed me.I didn't check the frequency; I just listened to the words and wording of the directions.I talked it over with the First Officer (FO) and he believes he did contact ground for the Mike Charlie clearance.Always check the frequency being talked on before following the directions given.


Second narrative: Upon landing on 36L took taxi way N and held short of 36C.  Switched to 126.4 to monitor for clearance to cross and acknowledged clearance to cross with call sign.  Apparently it was for another aircraft with similar call sign but ATC also cleared us as well before we passed the hold short line.  Acknowledged again for second time we were cleared to cross. On taxi in at spot 25N we were holding in sequence to go to our gate when aircraft in front of us got clearance to proceed down taxi way M then C.  We asked if we could follow the traffic (on 121.9) and understood that we could.  Then proceeded down MC to enter at C-10. Upon proceeding to gate we were asked to contact tower by phone.  He stated that we did not receive clearance to proceed down taxiway MC.  We stated we thought we did otherwise we would not have proceeded. On taxi in approaching we were told to contact the tower by phone.I believe with the large volume of traffic on the ground it becomes easy to misidentify a call sign especially when they are similar.  The radio frequency is more than crowded during push times. Limit the number of departures and arrivals in CLT.


Synopsis: Pilots report of landing at CLT and then having confusion about a similar call sign. An aircraft with a similar call sign is given a clearance and then their aircraft is given clearance. The pilots thought they had clearance to use taxiway MC but ATC said they did not.