elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were heading 315 degrees away from the LAX VOR on our assigned vector inbound to BUR; we were at 5;000 feet.SoCal Approach Control called out traffic at our 12 o'clock and approximately four miles. The traffic was at 4;500 feet in the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area on our same general heading and speed. This target was clearly displayed as a proximate TCAS target on our displays and was in the location described. There was a slight discrepancy in that the target indicated a steady 400 feet below our altitude rather than 500 feet below.We suddenly began receiving audible 'Traffic; Traffic' calls from the TCAS system. These calls were followed quickly by a 'Descend; Descend' audible and an Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI) command calling for a descent. We were in clear weather with unlimited visibility and were experiencing a pitch command to descend into a proximate target.We informed approach that we were receiving a RA to descend. The response was that there was 12 o'clock traffic ahead and below us.Before long an oncoming aircraft appeared visually at 12 o'clock above us and it went overhead. A threat indication appeared on our displays as it passed overhead. The threat indication showed an altitude 400 feet above us. The target and conflict alerts quickly cleared once the southbound aircraft was past.The incident was again reported to ATC and again they reported the aircraft below us. We emphasized that an aircraft had passed above us. We were told that the second aircraft had been 500 feet above us and was speaking to a different controller.The clear weather allowed us to visually maintain a flight path clear of conflicts ahead of us; despite aircraft indicating 400 feet above and below us. We received TCAS system commands to descend towards an aircraft that was below us while receiving no TCAS target displays or ATC notifications until the second; threat aircraft; was passing overhead. The reality of the situation seems to be that all aircraft were essentially properly controlled; in proper positions and that apparently; the variations in altitude transmissions caused an alert.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported traffic above and below the aircraft flight path in the LAX area which triggered an alert on the TCAS.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MMUN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other rotation location
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I operated out of MMUN last month and on takeoff we experienced a dip in the runway just at rotation; nothing concerning but definitely got your attention.  You could tell that they had been re-paving the runway and the dip appeared to be where the old surface met the new surface.  Yesterday I operated again out of MMUN Runway 12R.  It was my FO's leg and I briefed him on the dip in the runway at rotation that I experienced last month.  I thought that by now they had finished their paving project and we would not experience this again.  The dip in the runway was there and it was much worse.  It was jarring and certainly put a strain on the aircraft tires and landing gear.  I believe the asphalt is settling and has caused the dip to become deeper.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a dip/bump in the runway at MMUN airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My crew of 3 flight attendants; pos 1;2 & 4 worked a reconfigured 737-800 aircraft which had just entered the system with over 150 seats. The company is in process of reconfiguring 737 aircraft with over 150 seats. We did not realize this ac; had been reconfigured until we boarded the same ac the next day. On this flight departing the next day we had a #3 join our crew. This is when we realized our mistake. Flight Attendants need to be made aware that these aircraft are entering the system before the date when they are expected.


Second narrative: We flew a leg with 3 flight attendants; and we had a light load. On our flight home the next day we had an extra #3 on our crew. This aircraft was the new configuration requiring 4 flight attendants.....we were unaware of this when we flew out on the same aircraft. This occurrence was called in by our #2; and the union was contacted when we became aware of this situation. We were unaware 4 flight attendants were needed on this aircraft with such a light load. Confirm staffing requirements on the aircraft being flown.


Synopsis: Two flight attendants report operating a B737-800 flight with three flight attendants and discovering the next day that the aircraft had been reconfigured with more than 150 seats; requiring a fourth Flight Attendant.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: M03.TRACON, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E M03
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The main increase in workload during the critical stage of flight [during which the following event occurred] was the deferral of both the FMS database and the EFBs. It seems with advanced cockpits; where we are more dependent on electronic data; perhaps they should not be deferred at the same time.  Also; through a brief investigation on my part; it seems like it was a 'workload' issue with Maintenance that prevented the [timely] update of the databases. We were originally assigned the DAWGG arrival; ARG transition; landing [Runway] 36L. That arrival was loaded into the FMS. All waypoints were checked per SOP with the hard copy of the STAR charts. Due to facility outages we requested Runway 9; but were denied. After making the FL230 restriction at ARG the altimeters were set to QNH and 6;000 [FT] was dialed into the altitude select window and the in range checklist accomplished. Shortly thereafter we were pulled off the arrival between ARG and DAWGG and given a heading for spacing. We then asked what altitude they wanted us to descend [to] since we were no longer cleared via the arrival. They said maintain 10;000 [FT].We were then handed off; cleared direct FNCHR and re-cleared via the FNCHR RNAV STAR; north transition. That arrival was inserted. I was in the process of checking the arrival with the paper chart when I noticed we were [already] descending through 9;000 FT before reaching LOONR; which has a crossing restriction between 11;000 and 9;000.I believe there is about a six day period between when the database is available and when it becomes effective. The FMS has provisions for storing the database until it becomes effective. Why was that not done? Our workload was also increased because the GS; PAPIs and Approach lights were out of service OTS and there was a displaced threshold on [Runway] 36L.




Synopsis: An A300 flight crew; dispatched with their EFBs MEL'd and both FMC updates deferred; descended below the 9;000 MSL constraint at LOONR while descending via the FNCHR RNAV STAR to MEM.  Contributing factors included a vector off the DAWGG STAR; then recleared via the FNCHR and increased flight crew workload due to Dispatch with out of date FMS databases and MEL'd EFBs.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZ VFR. Our destination airport was ZZZ1. Standard FAA Telephone Weather Briefing was conducted by co-pilot. That information [was] High Pressure; No Significant Weather; Winds Aloft at planned Altitude - 7 knots. NOTAMS/TFRs Checked. Flight Planned distance was 440 miles. Altitude was 6;500 feet. Engine was Leaned as per Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH). Aircraft Fuel Gauges were Operational. At 15 miles from ZZZ1 the Engine began to Sputter. I positioned the Mixture Control to Full Rich; Turned On Aux pump (A) and switched fuel tanks. The Engine Came Back Alive.3 Minutes Later; the engine began to sputter again. I switched to AUX Pump 2. The engine came back alive momentarily; then quit. At this point; I was descending at L/D Max Whilst Looking for a suitable landing site. A country highway was selected; and used. The off airport landing was uneventful.  No Injuries or damage to equipment or property occurred.I telephoned the FAA right-away; and advised them of the situation. After FAA Approval; we put fuel in airplane; [officials] blocked [the] road; and I took off (solo) Flying the airplane to ZZZ1. At ZZZ1 an FAA Field Inspector met me; and I gave him a written statement of the events. The airplane has 'Engine Blow-BY'. The oil turns black in 15 hours of operation. The manual (1979 Aircraft X) 'Book Performance Values' are not accurate. The Engine was Consuming 11.1 Gallons per hour; that should not be. I should have stopped for fuel sooner! Do not believe older owner airplane manuals/POHs. If fuel guages read low to empty - believe them!!




Synopsis: Pilot of a small aircraft reported an uneventful landing off airport due to running out of fuel. The reporter stated the aircraft had 'engine blow by' and the fuel consumption rate in the manual is not correct.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared [to] taxi. Taxi light on and two vehicles ignored light that could have easily stopped forcing us to delay taxi. After they passed I observed another vehicle in the distance and began my left turn. Best way to describe it is like coming to a 4 way stop. You have right of way and begin to enter intersection and another vehicle which should have stopped and could have easily decides not too. This forces you to slam on brakes to avoid collision. I had to call FA (Flight Attendant) to ensure everyone in back was OK.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported performing an abrupt stop to avoid a collision with a ground vehicle during taxi at SFO.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While diverting around weather we were told to fly to a fix. We heard and typed in VERNI and proceeded. The fix ATC wanted was BURNI. Both are closely located. ATC corrected the fix and we proceeded to BURNI. No traffic or separation issues or safety issues were encountered.




Synopsis: A pilot reported ATC clearance direct BURNI but the crew heard and entered VERNI in the FMC. VERNI is near MGW while BURNI is at the intersection of J61 and J64; 108 NM northeast.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200T Turbo Seneca II
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Gear in Transit light stayed illuminated after gear retraction on initial takeoff. Crew went to practice area to trouble shoot. Crew consulted POH for recommendations. Gear was recycled several times to include manual extensions with various G loadings (up to approximately 2G) and airspeeds of approximately 80 KIAS. All extensions resulted in partial extension of nose gear. A gear check was accomplished by flight school's Chief Instructor who confirmed partial nose gear extension. Emergency was declared with Tower. Aircraft was flown-by Tower who confirmed partial nose gear extension. The door to aircraft was opened before landings to ensure ability to egress aircraft. [Two] attempts were made to bounce the nose gear into place with firm touch and go landings to no avail. Crew elected to full stop aircraft. Upon landing; mixtures were pulled lean; fuel was shut off and master switch was turned off. When nose was lowered the nose gear collapsed and aircraft stopped straight ahead on the runway. Crew egressed as briefed in flight. No injures to personnel.




Synopsis: A PA34 Instructor pilot reported 'Gear In Transit' light remained illuminated after takeoff; and a fly-by showed a partially retracted nose gear. After landing nose gear collapsed.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After doing simulated engine failures; we were flying straight and level and we had some misfiring. We then immediately came back to the airport; alerted tower; and landed. The tower had [airport personnel] followed us in. I told them what is listed above.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported engine misfires and roughness.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAR.Airport, WY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF LAR
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At LAR airport; most ground/taxi signage doesn't match Jeppesen plate with no NOTAM saying otherwise. A runway incursion/loss of situational awareness by pilot is highly likely with this situation. Please correct ASAP. Incorrect plates. Please update Jepp plates.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the signage in LAR Airport does not match the Jeppesen plate.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Falcon 10/100
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working (2) Sectors combined; Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z were conducting air-refueling in ABCDE.  This track is normally left turns; Aircraft Y asked to manuever in the track airspace to accomodate the receiver due to the sun angle.  I gave the aircraft permission to manuever; at the normal turn point where the aircraft would turn left the refuelers made a right turn into Aircraft X who was on a 20 degree left vector to avoid the turn point. Upon noticing the right turn I turned Aircraft X an additional 20 left and asked the tanker for a tighter turn to the right.  These instructions proved to be insufficient to maintain the required separation.  I would have pinned down the tanker more as to how he wanted to manuever.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a probable loss of separation event during a military re-fueling exercise when maneuvering intentions by the tanker were not clarified.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff Runway 14L passing through approximately FL052 and 244 KIAS in a light rain; 'Flaps Up' was called for (First Officer flying); 'Flaps Up Allow' was displayed; slats showed extend with 'No Up Allow'. Airspeed got red boxed and Stick Shaker occurred. Slats were re-extended; but it appears slats were only put into the back portion of the RET (Retract) detent without an 'Up Allow' again and a second stick shaker occurred. Slats were definitely extended second time and remainder of take off was uneventful.




Synopsis: Captain reports getting a Stick Shaker on their MD-11 aircraft during takeoff after 'Flaps Up' was called for and 'Flaps Up Allow' was displayed while slats were showing extend; with 'No Up Allow.'
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I just talked to Chief Pilot and sent him two photos showing my Safety concern. Off Spot X in PHX; next to the taxiway; there is a construction area with steel pilings next to the taxiway extending into the air about 15 feet. The piles are just outside the edge line for the taxiway and could easily be struck by a 737 wing if a Captain taxis north of the centerline of the taxiway. I saw no lights or markings to help Pilots see this hazard.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a potential construction hazard at PHX airport.