elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on vectors to intercept localizer at 3;000 FT; flaps 1; 180 KTS; flaps 5 [was] selected. EICAS message TE Flap disagree was displayed. Advised Approach; requested delay vectors to comply with required QRH procedures; declared 'pan' (emergency); requested emergency equipment; commenced approach; landed without indecent; and taxied to gate.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain experiences a TE Flap Disagree EICAS message when flaps are moved from 1 to 5 during approach. Delay vectors are requested; an emergency is declared; and QRH procedures are complied with.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taking off runway 15L with a left turn to heading 010 in Houston; [an A320] departed runway 15R approximately 15 seconds before us. We did note him rotate and we heard him assigned to fly runway heading after takeoff. We rotated and almost right after; we saw the A320 begin a left turn across our departure path. Since I was the flying pilot; I immediately slowed the climb of the aircraft and the First Officer (FO) told IAH ATC that the [A320] aircraft was turning across our departure path and that we were heading straight out. The Tower Controller immediately instructed the A320 to turn right and had us stop at 2000 FT. We were still unsure of where to actually point the aircraft as the [A320] was now turning right back across our departure path again. The Tower Controller had us turn left to 020 and then contact Departure. We came within 800-900 feet of the A320. No TA or RA was received. We performed no maneuvers outside of the flight envelope. We did not declare an emergency but did deviate from our assigned clearance for the traffic conflict. The IAH ATC facility controller handled this potential NMAC in an exemplary fashion and did everything to ensure safety and separation for both aircraft.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported an airborne conflict occurred departing IAH when an A320 failed to follow his ATC clearance.
Date: 201903
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight was planned by ramp lead with the dangerous goods and only 1 bag pit 1. Then the dangerous goods was finaled with no bags to securing the dangerous goods pit 1.




Synopsis: Ramp Load Agent reported Hazmat cargo improperly configured for air transport.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ANC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After cat 3 approach and landing on Runway 07R; we exited on Taxiway R and expected to taxi North on R to the ramp. Ground instructed us to taxi on G and G1 to Mike and then left on Mike to R. The visibility was worse north of the runways and I was taxiing slowly but still unable to see very far ahead. The Commercial II chart seems to show G1 stopping at L and has a break between L and M. Because of the visibility and darkness we couldn't see G1 continuing Northward and turned left on L to reach R instead of continuing north to reach M and turning left there to reach R. Ground saw us turn left on L and said that  was OK and for us to continue to R and turn North on R to the ramp. We should have stopped and confirmed with ground what the taxi instructions were. The Commercial II chart is unclear and we should have confirmed with ground that G1 continued north even though it is not shown on the chart. I should have been more wary because of the limited visibility.




Synopsis: B777 reports not complying with taxi instructions after landing at PANC in low visibility. A possible error in the Commercial II terminal taxiway diagram is brought to light.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Uneventful flight to PDX; assigned the HHOOD RNAV arrival by Seattle Center. When told to contact PDX Approach was taken off the HHOOD arrival just after HHOOD and to continue descent to 5;300 FT and go direct HANAH on the [Runway] 28L approach. Reset altitude from 6;700 to 5;300 and proceeded direct HANAH. While level at 5;300 prior to HANAH received GPWS warning TERRAIN; TERRAIN; PULL UP. I selected TOGA autopilot OFF and climbed to approximately 6;300. Event over; advised ATC; and was re-cleared to 4;000 FT. Uneventful approach and landing.I noticed radio altimeter came into view and rapidly went from 2;500 to 1;400 just before warning. ATC said highest obstruction was about 4;300 and MVA was 5;300. Suspect rapid terrain increase was the reason for the warning.




Synopsis: An A320 received an EGPWS TERRAIN; PULL UP warning and executed the escape maneuver at 5;300 FT on the PDX Runway 28L ILS prior to HANAH. ATC reported a 4;300 FT terrain feature at that point and a MVA of 5;300 FT.
Date: 201404
Location: PIE.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower PIE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff from tower; [the Captain] added power and let off the brakes. As we were on the roll we were told to cancel the takeoff. I questioned as to why and we were told because of landing traffic on another runway. We were instructed to exit on taxiway lima and contact ground. Ground asked us if we needed to return for fuel. I stated if there was no undue delay we would be able to avoid going back. As we rounded the corner of taxiway lima we felt the aircraft slow down; Captain added power and the aircraft rolled out. We decided to return to the gate to determine if there was any potential damage to the aircraft. Maintenance inspected the aircraft and said there was no damage done. [Suggest] ban all turns northbound on taxiway alpha for large aircraft from taxiway lima.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported turning north on main taxiway at PIE and taxied off the paved surface. Following a return to the gate; a  maintenance inspection revealed no damage. Reporter recommended no turns from narrow feeder taxiways for large aircraft.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While en route at FL430; approximately 45 minutes into the flight; we received an amber 'RT WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP' CAS message. This was followed shortly thereafter with a 'LT WINDSHIELD HEAT INOP' message. My partner noticed some flashing of sparks in his windshield (right); then a few seconds later it shattered. We complied with the appropriate checklists and declared an emergency. I then advised the company and the passengers of the situation; and that we were diverting. We landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reports right and left windshield heat inoperative CAS messages at FL430; followed shortly by the First Officer's window shattering. An emergency is declared and the flight diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Tower, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My aircraft was cleared for a departure from LAS with a climbing right turn to a northerly heading and 3;000 feet. As I was reaching an altitude of 3;000 feet and a heading of roughly north; another aircraft made a call to tower saying that we had nearly collided. At this time I looked over my right shoulder and spotted another helicopter at my altitude approximately 200 feet behind me and 100 feet to the east. As I was making my climbing right turn I believe that aircraft was making a left turn above me and to my left rear at 3;000 feet. Luckily the pilot of the other aircraft was able to see me before we collided.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot had just departed LAS at night; VMC when another helicopter pilot reported a near miss with his aircraft. The other aircraft was unseen until after the fact.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Antiskid System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out we received an ECAM for loss of Anti-skid; nose wheel steering; normal brakes and auto brakes; and my [many] years on the airplane told me we lost BSCU (Brake System Control Unit) Channels 1 and 2. All resets failed. We elected to divert due to a longer runway. We were legal to land in ZZZ but felt [a longer runway] was more prudent. Landing was uneventful took the high speed turnoff set the brakes.


Second narrative: On climb out; after retracting the landing gear we were alerted by an ECAM message for a BRAKES: Anti-Skid Nose Wheel Steering fault. We completed the ECAM and then referenced the QRH. We were unable to restore the system. After leveling at our cruise altitude; we contacted Dispatch and requested a phone patch with Maintenance Control. Per Maintenance Control we tried cycling the Nose Wheel Steering/Antiskid switch; but this did not rectify the issue. We later coordinated with Dispatch; after discussing out options as a crew; and elected to divert to a longer runway. We landed uneventfully and cleared the runway. We then had maintenance tow us to a gate.


Synopsis: A319 Flight Crew reported an ECAM message for Anti-Skid and Nose Wheel Steering fault after retracting the landing gear. QRH procedures did not correct the problem and the crew elected to divert to an airport with a longer runway.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician; Lead Technician
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft with MEL 24-11-XX; IDG 1/IDG 1 FEEDER FAULT; 1 Day remaining on MEL. When we opened the LH core cowl; damage was noted to IDG Feeder wires; one feeder wire burnt half way through. It was noted that an Adel clamp was missing that attaches the feeder harness to engine stand-off bracket and the harness was routed in front of the remote oil service line when it's supposed to be routed behind the line. Had the harness been attached with Adel clamp and routed correctly there would be no way for the Feeder cables to chafe. So there is the cause of the damage. The engine was last replaced [recently with many] Cycles ago. The C2 Task card was last completed [in previous months.] Improper routing of phase lead wiring and missing ADEL caused chaffing and eventual arching. This caused a IDG failure.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported that while investigating an MEL item; (IDG FEEDER FAULT) on a CRJ-900; found damage to the IDG Feeder wires due to a missing clamp.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I would imagine this problem is system wide. Aircraft 'A' has more than one (1) or multiple Flight Plan/s pending off of 1 specific domicile/airport. Unknowingly to the pilot and company; this creates confusion within the Air Traffic Control System. Example A: A foreign air carrier who files multiple flight plans with routes that differ well into the 'Body' of the routing many miles away from it's point of departure/over the Atlantic Ocean. Because multiple routes filed by the user are different; to the same destination; the potential for a mishap is greatly increased due to the existence of more than one flight plan being in the system. Add the language barrier; and you're asking for trouble. Example B: N12345 files multiple flight plans to different destinations off of the same domicile/airport. His problem is that his 1st choice is on an EDCT Program etc. So; he decides to file for something else to another airport close to his 1st choice airport. The problem is; he's got 2 flight plans pending in the system; with one flight progress strip at one position (i.e.: Flight Data or Ground Control); and another totally different flight progress strip (with the same call sign/different airport destination and route) at another position in the Tower. Example C: Swap Event in effect the Hub. So; now the major players decide to file multiple routes/flight plans to their destinations simultaneously due to weather avoidance. Despite ATC discouraging this activity; it happens all of the time. The ability to track flight plans is strained and breaks down; causing confusion among pilots and controllers both inter and intra-facility. Here's your logical fix to this dangerous problem: Do Not Allow Any Aircraft and the people who file flight plans on their behalf; to file more than (1) one flight plan off of the same domicile/airport simultaneously. The host computer can; and should generate a message to effect of saying 'Reject: Flight Plan Pending off of this Domicile'. Then the person entering the flight plan on behalf of the user (Flight Service etc) would have to query the user of their intentions; to either remove their current flight plan; or leave the one alone that already exists in the system. This fix also reduces the amount of 'Squawk Codes' issued by the host computer; as you are allocated 'one code per customer/user'. Four digit Codes are at a premium; especially during Swap Events.




Synopsis: IAD Controller voiced concern regarding the on-going issue of multiple flight plans being filed by the company that frequently result in confused and uncertain routing information.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Towing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Myself and my partner were dispatched to tow Aircraft X from Gate X to the hangar. We followed SOP for removing Aircraft X off of the gate. As we entered Location Y at the hangar we had to go wide around another aircraft that was parked on spot X1 which due to the COVID pandemic is a made up spot sitting east of Taxiway X; we were to park our aircraft on [spot] X2. After passing that aircraft I positioned my supertug and the aircraft east of the taxi line. I was following a seam in the hangar concrete in an attempt to position my supertug to the right side of another aircraft that was parked on spot X1 in order to back my aircraft into the X2 spot; also not a normal parking spot. As I swung the aircraft to the east my partner asked if I was okay with where the mobile stairs were located and I confirmed that I was fine with their location. I was following my guide man's directions who was located to my left; as I approached the spot I looked away from the guide man to see where the front of my supertug was because I knew I was approaching the end of the concrete. When I looked back the guide man had given the stop sign and my partner was telling me to stop. My partner told me we had made contact with the mobile stairs; I placed the supertug in park and set the emergency brake. Upon inspection we confirmed that I had hit the mobile stairs with the wingtip which resulted in the edge being bent. SOP was followed removing the aircraft from the gate but there is no SOP parking the aircraft in made up spots due to the COVID pandemic.


Second narrative: We were involved in an incident which occurred at the ZZZ Company Hanger. With COVID-19 now affecting aircraft movements; we are moving aircraft in unsafe manners. With no safety advocate. We as a team are moving aircraft in manners that were not trained to do. In the area this aircraft; Aircraft X; was being parked; there are no guide marks; no lead in lines; and no stop markings. It has been set up as a 'point of reference.' This lead to Aircraft X to being damaged. The wing tip was slightly damaged. In the past 5 months since COVID-19 the ZZZ team has been moving aircraft with no clear guidelines; and no safety advocate to speak for us.


Synopsis: Ground crew reported a wing-tip collision occurred while they were towing an aircraft to a made-up parking spot that was created due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crew stated there were no markings to guide the aircraft to the spot.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SGS.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF SGS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After runup I tuned AWOS for another check of wind and altimeter setting. Wind was less than 4 knots so I announced departure on Runway 16; which is the calm wind runway at Fleming Field (SGS). I did not hear any other traffic calls so I powered up. As the airplane began to roll I saw an aircraft departing Runway 34. I pulled power; started braking; moved right to exit at closest taxiway. As I approached the taxiway the other aircraft cleared overhead.




Synopsis: A pilot began the takeoff roll on SGS Runway 16 after making the suggested CTAF communications; then aborted and exited the runway when another aircraft was seen taking off opposite direction.