elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JNU.Airport, AK
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D JNU
ATC / advisory: Tower JNU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Local; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I opened the Tower and worked all positions. It was in the beginning and the Tower had just opened. Aircraft X was on the main ramp. He made a transmission the way an aircraft would if the Tower was not open. I observed him and issued taxi instructions. I continued to call him over and over. I had no other aircraft even close to the airspace or on the movement areas. Since I was working both positions combined I was transmitting on both Tower and Ground frequency. I had an Air Carrier talking to me on ground; so I knew I was going out on ground; and I had an Air Carrier 35 miles out on an approach so I know local frequency was working. Aircraft X then took the active and departed. I called his company from the landline and got a hold of him that way. He called me on Tower frequency 6 miles to the west; [and] then I issued the brasher warning. None; it was an honest mistake early in the morning. It was not a big deal.




Synopsis: JNU Tower Controller reports of opening Tower; observing an aircraft on the movement area and tries to contact it.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew planned for DOOBI2 arrival into IAH expecting runway 26L.  On descent prior to approach ATC changed arrival to ZEEKK1 with runway 26R transition.  Next; while inside AEX on the arrival approach ATC changed transition to runway 27.  Each change required changes in the FMC which caused the FMC to become confused creating a serious distraction to both crew members.  This required switching to heading select while making sure the crew had the correct flight path and fixes.  By the time the FMC figured out the descent path the aircraft was well above the path necessitating speed brakes to get back on path.  Meanwhile; a check of the FMAs revealed that the aircraft was still in HDG mode which was quickly changed back to LNAV.  Lastly; each runway transition on the ZEEKK1 arrival into IAH has a different bottom altitude and ATC changes induce the opportunity to forget to set the proper altitude once ATC has changed the transition.  Altogether; this unnecessary chain of events created by ATC must be immediately rectified by terminating the descend via clearance until the FMC has been properly programmed and the crew is relieved of having to comply with step down fix restrictions that cannot be verified while the FMC is confused.  ATC needs to know about these frustrating and potentially dangerous complications that occur when changes are made after a descent has begun on a descend via clearance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported multiple changes to the IAH arrival clearance drastically increased the workload and vulnerability to error.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading 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; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff out of ZZZ; FD failed. MCP displayed bizarre behavior. We flew raw data. MCP would not allow heading changes. Would occasionally allow altitude change but would randomly jump to 50;000' in the window. We discussed; started looking at checklists; and it came back online to eventually what seemed like full functionality. We were climbing on LNAV when ATC said fly present heading. I hit the heading button and repeated it but apparently it didn't take. ATC acknowledged we didn't comply but said separation wasn't an issue since we climbed fast enough. We wrote up the discrepancy. Captain was trying to do too much. He was looking at possible checklists and talking on the radio. One person should been flying and talking; and only one person in the QRH. Switch after time if necessary. I was fixated on altitudes afraid it would jump to 50;000 ft again and failed to verify; monitor; and intervene.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported Flight Director and Mode Control Panel failure on takeoff.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Since their introduction; I have flown both CAVLR2 Arrival into IAD and the CAPSS1 Arrival into DCA several times. I have seen the aircraft consistently struggle to meet both the crossing and speed restrictions without very large speed excursions. It appears that the aircraft pitches up to make the 250 knot speed restriction and then dives to make the 10;000 feet altitude restrictions. On several occasions; we have had to disconnect the autopilot and intervene in order to prevent an aircraft overspeed.On a few occasions; I have attempted to preclude this situation by placing more conservative 'hard' altitudes (in compliance with the speeds and altitudes on the arrival) at several or all of the fixes in the profile. However; the aircraft still executes a 'pitch up and dive' maneuver in order to fly the profile. Recovery from these events has typically happened during an extremely high workload phase of flight.It is apparent that the combination of a steep profile and limited distance for deceleration are too extreme for the FMC to fly; even in the best conditions. A weather event or any sort of tailwind would make these arrivals unthinkable.The CAVLR and CAPSS arrivals need to be revised to reflect how the FMC software actually attempts to fly these profiles.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported the CAVLR2 arrival into IAD and the CAPSS1 arrival into DCA are not flown properly by his aircraft's autoflight system.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; 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: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of FL180 I did an overhead panel scan and noticed that the battery amp meter was reading 450 amps. There was no other abnormal indication anywhere in the cockpit. The First Officer and I discussed the problem and came to the conclusion that it had to be an indication problem. I phone patched Maintenance Control to discuss our options. After explaining what we had; he informed me that there was no QRH or maintenance procedure for our problem. Maintenance then called the [manager on duty]. Between the two of them they had a lengthy conversation about what we should do. Most of the time leaving us; (the pilots) out of the loop. The [manager on duty] wanted the flight to continue before consulting with the Captain. I spoke to the [manager on duty] the next day. He told me he heard two other voices on the line and he thought that one of them was mine when it was two mechanics. My ARINC phone patch was not the clearest and they could only hear every third word. After we were all in agreement that it was truly an indication problem we continued to [destination] and Maintenance was shipping parts to fix the problem. Maintenance installed a new overhead electrical panel but it didn't fix the problem. Further troubleshooting found a ground wire that was cut leading to the amp gage. Maintenance did not have the proper crimp tool to splice the wires together. The flight was then DELAYED for 24 hours. [A different] maintenance [service] came down the next day and spliced the wires together. We flew the [next leg] with no further problems. The battery in the airplane was replaced 9 days prior.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported he continued to destination after experiencing high battery amperage. Problem was later traced to amp gauge wiring.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With 15 minutes left in flight; we took our jumpseats and noticed once we sat a strong pungent smell that smelled cheesy and musty coming through the cabin. I notified the other FAs (Flight Attendants) and they also smelled it. Smell continued until the boarding door was opened. My throat was burning and a headache came about.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported pungent odor on descent that continued until deplaning at destination. Flight Attendant also reported minor health issues.
Date: 201507
Location: IND.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared on and descending via the KOLTS1 RNAV arrival into IND. Just prior to EKEKE intersection we were assigned a different runway (I believe we had 23L loaded and we were assigned 23R). I made the runway change in the FMC and the First Officer (FO) verified it prior to executing the change. We had not noticed a discontinuity that had been inserted in the process. When the change was executed; V-NAV disengaged. We both recognized the mode reversion. I went 'heads down' to find the error and the FO manually flew via the MCP. Due to our close proximity to EKEKE during the change in clearance and subsequent FMC change; although the FO recognized the 10000 FT restriction just prior to EKEKE he was unable to arrest the descent rate before descending below 10000 just prior to EKEKE. I believe we stopped around 9400-9500 FT. Immediately past EKEKE we were back on the FMC path; the FMC error had been corrected; and we continued to descend via the arrival.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports receiving a runway change from 23L to 23R approaching EKEKE on the KOLTS1 RNAV Arrival to IND. When the runway change is executed in the FMC; EKEKE disappears along with its crossing restriction and an altitude deviation occurs.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Someone in Flight Planning Support disabled the 'autofiling function' on flights assigned to my Dispatch desk on the date in question. In essence; the AFTN addresses that are automatically attached to dispatch releases in order to submit flight plans to all enroute ATC centers was removed for some unknown reason. This was not realized until sometime during the PM shift when RJJJ ATC Center called stating they did not have flight plans on file for many of our flights that were already enroute. This is an extremely serious issue; especially in light that the Company and Flight Support specifically are promoting the use of portions of North Korean airspace. Fortunately; we were contacted by governments that are friendly to the US. HOWEVER; what IF [a certain] flight plan did not reach the North Korean ATC?  Once the issue was discovered by RJJJ ATC the PM Dispatcher had to re-file all the flight plans that were enroute which significantly increased workload.Flight planning needs to notify the dispatcher(s) of their intentions and a Center or Sector Manager prior to taking any action which involves calculating flight plans and/or the format by which they are presented.




Synopsis: When someone failed to actuate the autofiling to enroute ATC centers function of flight plans by dispatchers a number of trans-Pacific flights departed without ATC coordination; causing pilots; ATC; and dispatchers to play catch up.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I had planned a XC with a student to go to ZZZ with an expected diversion due to snow accumulation. The planned diversion was to be to ZZZ1. NOTAMs were checked at both airports. ZZZ had no report for anything regarding snow-which was expected due to having this occurrence with a student before. However; I thought that ZZZ1 would have a NOTAM regarding snow condition or if the runway was unusable or closed due to the snow accumulation. No NOTAM was seen regarding that. At ZZZ diversion was initiated as planned. Upon coming to ZZZ1; we noticed that it looked like the airport was mostly still covered in snow. Upon flyover; we noticed that there was a thin plowed section on the runway centerline maybe 20 ft or less in width. I decided we would enter the pattern and fly the approach and decide whether to land or not. Landing was executed upon seeing runway centerline. I as the instructor should have been doing the full landing and on the controls. However; I let the student attempt to initiate the landing. We ended up getting out of the plowed portion and upon side pull; I took the flight controls. I put in lots of left rudder due to the unplowed portion pulling us to the right. We then fishtailed to the left and upon that right rudder was put in. Speed at this point had been reduced quite a bit and a stop was made just to the left of runway centerline. I then did a soft field takeoff remaining in the plowed portion. On review; I as the instructor should have been on the controls the full time during landing. 2nd lesson was that we should have just abandoned the landing due to the unplowed portion and the risk of side pull or ground control loss. 3rd lesson was to not expect an uncontrolled field to put out a NOTAM if the airport has snow on the runway or if the runway is unusable. No noted damage occurred to the aircraft and flight back was non-safety eventful.




Synopsis: A C172 instructor pilot allowed his student pilot to attempt a landing on a snow covered runway that had been plowed 20 feet in width. The student lost control; but the instructor regained control and they returned to their departure airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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 Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff and prior to acceleration altitude; the EICAS illuminated the SMOKE AFT LAV master warning message. The first officer was the pilot flying and also handled the radios while I contacted the flight attendants. I asked them if they smelled smoke or fumes in the cabin. I also asked them to check the aft lavatory waste basket for smoke or fire. The flight attendants said there was a strong smell of fumes in the cabin but there was no smoke or fire coming from the aft lavatory waste basket. However; she said the passengers were complaining of strong fumes in the cabin. I [advised ATC] and asked for CFR services to meet the airplane upon landing. All company procedure were followed and we returned to land. I asked the fire marshal to board the aircraft and evaluate the cabin. He agreed to inspect the cabin and pronounced the situation all clear. I contacted dispatch and taxied to the gate where the passengers were deplaned. I then contacted maintenance with a log book entry.


Second narrative: [Maintenance] diagnosed the problem to be from an improperly performed engine maintenance the night prior.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported returning to their departure airport after receiving an EICAS message 'SMOKE AFT LAV' and smelling fumes in the cabin.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DAB.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was VFR inbound to DAB. He was cleared to land Runway 25R. When I looked out the window; the aircraft appeared to be high and I was expecting a long landing. I was advised by an aircraft that was holding short of Runway 25R at an intersection that the aircraft on final appeared to be lined up for Taxiway November. I immediately issued go-around instructions for Aircraft X and had them climb out and enter a right downwind for Runway 25R. He then landed normally. This is a recurring problem at the DAB airport. The height of the Tower reduces the ability to judge if an aircraft is high or is actually lined up for a parallel taxiway. Additional markings on the parallel taxiways may also be helpful. Large taxiways being painted on the surface as is done at other airports could reduce this.




Synopsis: DAB Tower Controller reported sending an aircraft around due to it being lined up to land on a taxiway.