elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was under the impression that the PDC stated ZZZ [our Destination airport] after SEWTO. I now know that the '//' symbol represents the rest of the route as filed. Upon receiving the PDC in ORD the First Officer and I reviewed it. It stated a slight reroute. 'ORD8-MOBLE-ADIME-SEWTO://ZZZ. We both understood that after SEWTO we were supposed to proceed direct to ZZZ. In flight at FL210 we passed SEWTO; ATC inquired about our routing stating that we should be flying the route 'SEWTO-FWA-ROD-ZZZ' which is what we were filed for. After I told the controller that we had some confusion on the PDC he then cleared us to 'ROD-ZZZ.' The flight continued without incident.When coming across symbolism on the PDC that I do not see often I am going to give Clearance Delivery a call and verify our routing and clear any confusion.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports misunderstanding a PDC symbol; thinking that '//' means direct when it actually means the rest of the route as filed. This leads to a track deviation which is corrected by ATC.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working SR; all sectors combined. Using multi-mode; I had a South Handoff Controller working for me due to the ZZZ RADAR failing earlier in the day when the entire RADAR room went dark; including the RADAR scope; radios; and all lighting. I attempted to transmit but did not appear to be going out. I made a blind transmission that ZZZ had suffered a major equipment failure to maintain VFR and attempt to contact ZZZ ATCT. The RADAR room was OTS for several minutes; not sure how long before power returned. We eventually resumed RADAR service in ES (emergency service mode) then Full service when power became available. Ensure back-up power supply is maintained and/or monitored and possibly included in Watch check-list to prevent total loss of services.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described the total failure of RADAR; Radio and all facility electrical inputs; the reporter improved attention to local 'contingency' plans.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Planned to fly to practice area near airport. The practice area is just beyond [Mountain A]. The top of [Mountain A] was clearly visible from airport. Planned to go around mountain and to stay at low altitude below clouds. Ran into cloud layer at a lower altitude than expected. Contacted tower and explained situation. Followed their instructions for heading and altitude. Since I am not IFR certified we determined that it was best to divert to the closest VFR airport which was ZZZ1. ZZZ monitored our progress until we were able to get below the clouds and had the airport in sight. They asked us to call when on the ground. We tried several times but could not get through so we contacted Flight Services and they said they would contact the tower.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported entering an unexpected cloud deck that resulted in ATC assistance to a nearby VFR airport.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Fatigue call: 1) assigned 3; 6 day sequences of reserve for April.  2) this was day 6 of the second sequence. 3) on reserve there is no consistency with early morning; late show; deadheads; left seat; right seat; excessive airport appreciation time; getting to the motel after a long day with no reservations (happens a lot on reserve); scheduled 14+ hour days ('we can schedule you up to 16 hours because you're on reserve'); put back on rest at 3:30 am to fly later. If you go to bed to get 8 hours of sleep for a 3 am on call; you can't be expected to go back to sleep for another 8 hours. 4) Flying with First Officer's with steam coming out of their ears; all lead up to my fatigue call. This is my first time calling in fatigued in my entire 23 year career of flying 121.More humane consideration for reserve pilots; just because one is able to interpret the contract to their benefit doesn't necessarily produce the desired results. From speaking to other pilots; especially reserve pilots; you will get fatigue and sick calls if the pilot senses a lack of respect for their time and professionalism.




Synopsis: EMB170 Captain describes the conditions leading up to a fatigue call.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHLI.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PHLI
ATC / advisory: Tower PHLI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Flying ILS Runway 35 in PHLI. Broke out of IMC conditions several miles out on final. Saw [a] very large cruise ship steaming from left to right out of harbor with course that would cross the short final in front of Runway 35. It appeared to me that the ship's vector would cross ours on a very short final 1 mile. I directed the First Officer to query the Tower if this ship was going to be a problem with our final. The Tower's answer was something like '...they (the ships) don't coordinate with us.' I elected to fly high on the final glide path; approximately one dot high; to ensure adequate clearance over the cruise ship but was also considering a go-around because of the height of the ship. It turned out that we did; in fact; cross directly over the ship on short final. If I had stayed on the ILS glideslope the clearance would have been very uncomfortable. Had this been IMC conditions and with any deviation at all below the glideslope; there may have been inadequate clearance over the ship. Although I was able to fly a little high and conduct a stabilized approach in this instance; it seemed like a potentially hazardous situation that should be better coordinated in the future.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported having to fly high on the glidepath while on the ILS Runway 35 to PHLI to avoid a possible collision with a large cruise ship passing directly under.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Began pushback; then realized we had not received final dangerous goods report. Stopped pushback; requested final report and received it.


Second narrative: Was in the cue early to receive clearance from ATC.  Received clearance as expected push back time and started push and realized we pushed without final Dangerous Goods documentation.  We then set brakes and held start and taxing until receiving the required paperwork. After receiving documentation we continued with the start and taxi.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported departure gate push back without required hazmat documents.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Our clearance was to proceed direct to HADAN and intercept the localizer for Runway 36R at MEM. We were proceeding west; direct to HADAN at the time. About 12 miles east of HADAN waypoint we got a false localizer capture abeam Olive Branch airport. I noticed it immediately and disconnected the autopilot and hand flew toward HADAN; without any course deviation. We reported the false localizer to ATC and the Controller advised us that it is a recurring problem for Runway 36R at MEM and that he would report the problem. Approaching HADAN I reconnected the autopilot in LNAV; we reselected the localizer to MEM 36R and it captured normally. There was no deviation from course or altitude but capturing a false localizer has been a recurring problem to this runway based on reading flight safety reports. The FAA needs to de-conflict the localizer frequencies or take some measure to prevent a repeated problem. Perhaps a NOTAM is in order until a more permanent solution is found.




Synopsis: A B757-200 Captain encountered an autoflight false localizer capture 12 NM east of the Runway 36R localizer at MEM; a recurring problem per the Tower. Operating in VMC; he disconnected autoflight and continued to a normal intercept; approach and landing.
Date: 202007
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Hangar
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was a part of a crew along with NAME and NAME1 to downjack Aircraft X off jacks while trying to accomplish a landing gear health check. During the procedure the aircraft came off the nose jack; and caused puncture damaged to the lower forward belly skin. After further examination we realized we had failed to remove the tail stand. The aircraft tail stand did not have a safety alarm installed.The tail stands in the hangar used to have alarms installed on them. We might want to consider making sure we have the safety devices installed on all of our tail stands on company wide.




Synopsis: Technician reported that during down jacking; they neglected to remove the tail stand; resulting in damage to the forward fuselage skin.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While arriving at [the gate] the distance remaining indicator was not operating properly and showed flashing green line when well within the arrival area. All indicators were correct. Aircraft was stopped and taxi light flashed 3 times at ramp crew. No one approached the aircraft with a head set. I would not use the Accupark as the distance remaining was inaccurate. The ramp crew was arguing amongst themselves and finally we were marshaled into the gate. The Accupark system was reported inoperative; with reason to operations on their dedicated frequency.About 1 hour later I called operations to see what the outcome of the inoperative system was. No one knew that the system was inoperative!Problem area....1. Lack of ramp crew awareness of aircraft to ramp signals.2. Operations dismissing inputs from aircrew. This will end up causing and injury; damage; or death if inoperative systems are continued to be utilized after being reported as malfunctioning.I should not be required to check on completion of task when reporting malfunctioning systems. The reporting; and corrective checks and balances used by operations are flawed and dangerous.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported problems with the Accupark system at the gate.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight; detected areas of possible corrosion that need to be addressed by Maintenance. I have seen it on several rudder assemblies on various aircraft and consider it a general defect that could lead to airworthiness issues to the entire Saab 340 fleet.Hearing the word 'corrosion' from Maintenance is similar to hearing the word 'cancer' from your physician. They're both scary; but I am only talking corrosion in this narrative. I recommended reading Advisory Circular AC-43-4A entitled 'Corrosion Control for Aircraft;' from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) website; www.FAA.gov. According to the document; there are seven forms of corrosion that occur on airframes. It would be best finding all hidden corrosion on aging airframes and have it removed.

Callback: Reporter stated seeing the corrosion around the rudder trim tab and the attaching fasteners while accomplishing the preflight walk around. The paint appeared to be bubbling up around the fastener heads. This is the fourth airplane that he has seen this on. After notifying the Company of his observation on these airplanes; they were taken out of service and repaired. He said he was not aware of a comprehensive inspection program to look for this problem on all the airplanes in the fleet.



Synopsis: Saab 340 First Officer reported finding areas of possible corrosion on the airplane rudder near the trim tab during preflight inspection. Aircraft was removed from service and repaired.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
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 Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flap Fail CAS message during climb out. Performed QRH items. Reported to ARTCC and asked to forward emergency and longest runway required for flapless landing at destination. Aircraft had a flap failure the day before and (apparently) not correctly diagnosed and repaired. This emergency occurred during (approximately) a 14 hour duty day; followed by compensatory rest to an early report this morning; followed by an extension to fly after my scheduled release time. This was my first opportunity in which to submit this report.




Synopsis: CL65 Captain experiences a Flaps Fail CAS message during climb out and continues to destination. An emergency is declared and a no flap landing ensues. The logbook indicated that the aircraft had experienced the same anomaly the day prior.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HSV.Airport, AL
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C HSV
ATC / advisory: Tower HSV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Vehicle X plus 2 were conducting a runway inspection of runway 33.  Aircraft X was inbound for landing runway 33.  The three vehicles passed the runway edge prior to Aircraft X crossing the runway threshold. But were not passed the hold short line; therefore were still in the runway safety area according to the runway safety council. We were notified that it was a runway incursion. I was not aware that this was considered a runway incursion. I am basing my decision off of the 7110.65 definition of what 'clear of the runway' meant. I did not realize that vehicles were not included under this rule.Clear of the runway?a. Taxiing aircraft; which is approaching a runway; is clear of the runway when all parts of the aircraft are held short of the applicable runway holding position marking.b. A pilot or controller may consider an aircraft; which is exiting or crossing a runway; to be clear of the runway when all parts of the aircraft are beyond the runway edge and there are no restrictions to its continued movement beyond the applicable runway holding position marking.c. Pilots and controllers shall exercise good judgement to ensure that adequate separation exists between all aircraft on runways and taxiways at airports with inadequate runway edge lines or holding position markings.We were notified that we are not allowed to use the runway edge as clear of the runway regardless if the person exiting the runway was an aircraft or vehicle or personnel. I'm not sure why this was considered a runway incursion according to the runway safety council.They say if any aircraft or vehicle or personnel is in the safety area then no aircraft can land or depart until they are removed from the safety area then this definition should be removed from the 7110.65 as it was misleading. Or I would hope that vehicles would be added to this definition.Vehicles should be added to the definition for future reference. Or it should be removed because by following the rule even with an aircraft as it states would be considered a runway incursion under their guidelines.


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


Synopsis: HSV controllers reported of a runway incursion involving a vehicle. The controllers just thought that vehicles had to be clear of the runway and did not realize that vehicles had to be on the safe side of the hold short bars.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; 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: Flight returned to ZZZZ due to smoke and fumes in the cockpit.Maintenance problem.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported Flight Crew reported smoke and fumes in cockpit after take off. Flight Crew performed an air turn back.