elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching ARCHI on the DYAMD 2 Arrival into SFO; we were cleared the ILS to Runway 28R. This approach begins at ARCHI. We flew the approach and all went well until arriving at gate we noticed the NOTAM on the weather package that changed the crossing altitude at ARCHI from 7000 ft. to 8000 ft. I remembered that we set 7000 ft. when we were cleared to descend via; but cannot recall if we actually were below the new NOTAM altitude of 8000 ft. when we crossed ARCHI on the approach.


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


Synopsis: Once parked at the gate at SFO; crew noticed the NOTAM change to the crossing altitude at ARCHI intersection on the DYAMD 2 Arrival.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Waste Water Disposal System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A full aircraft and all lavatory inop being told under 16;000. This violates the DOT requirement to have operable lavatories anytime an airplane is on the tarmac.




Synopsis: B787 Flight Attendant reported a DOT violation due to no operative lavatories with passengers on board.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was our second time into LGA that day. Weather was excellent VFR all day; and LGA was using Runway 22 for arrivals.  First time through; the approach was visual; backed up by the ILS 22; as we do many times. On this flight; LGA was advertising the LDA-A to 22; which neither of us had ever done before. The approach frequency was; as usual; very congested; so I was not able to ask why they were utilizing the LDA instead of the ILS.  This approach is; of course; a circling approach.  The weather was well above 1000/3; and we verified in the FOM that we are indeed approved to fly LDA approaches so I am confident that we were legal.My concern is that flying this approach was 'disorienting' because of the 10 degree offset; and the fact that there are no published descent rates with the corresponding ground speeds. It just doesn't seem to 'fit' with our procedures.  I really wanted to turn and line up with the runway centerline; but had to fly through to join the LDA.  Looking back; had the weather been closer to 1000/3; I don't think I would have been comfortable flying this approach.We could have told Approach we were unable to fly that approach; but I couldn't predict my level of discomfort until we actually flew it.  Could Jeppesen publish an LDA 22; with corresponding descent rates that would more closely align with our procedures?




Synopsis: B737 Captain described the LDA-A Runway 22 Approach at LGA as 'disorienting' because of the 10 degree offset during a VMC approach.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
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: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately XA:20 into the flight at cruise FL370 the Green Left Main Gear down and locked indicator light on the forward panel illuminated. There were no other indications of any malfunction. There is no associated QRH procedure. We contacted [Maintenance Control] and they looked and agreed that it was a faulty indication. We asked dispatch for burn data with the gear down to ZZZ; ZZZ1 and ZZZ2 just in case the gear did come down in flight. They had trouble giving us that data. He was able to get us burn numbers with gear pinned down for ferry information but it took probably 20 minutes or more and was only able to provide that we would go back to ZZZ1.Because we had an irregular gear indication we decided the safest course of action was to declare an emergency and have the ARFF equipment standing by on landing. We briefed the flight attendants that we anticipated a normal landing but we would be informing the passengers there was an abnormal indication and that the fire trucks would be inspecting us on landing. The flight attendants were told not to prepare for evacuation unless we got an unsafe indication on the approach and we would go around and brief them of such. We made a PA about the fire trucks at top of decent. We continued in; put the gear down very early; got normal indications and continued to a normal landing. We cleared the runway and stopped and the ARFF guys noted nothing abnormal. Out of an abundance of caution we had maintenance come out and pin the gear and tow us to the gate. In the decent the captain noted that while all 3 airspeed indicators were showing 335kts that his barber pole was dropping down to 320 kts while mine was at 340. His showed us 15 kts overspeed into the barber pole. There were no other indications of any malfunction but I slowed down to 270kts. During the rollout we did get a PSEU light on the overhead and a master caution. That light remained on until parked at the gate. The barber pole on the captain side was matching mine again by somewhere above 10;000 [feet].




Synopsis: Pilot reported that in cruise; left main gear green down and locked light illuminated; causing the flight crew to advise ATC and make a precautionary emergency landing.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on downwind during a training flight in the traffic pattern during a time of very heavy activity; as I began to turn base there was another aircraft slightly above and behind me. I immediately took evasive action by descending and turning away from the other aircraft. We had both been announcing our positions on CTAF but were not aware of how close we were to each other.


Second narrative: I was on downwind with a student and we were just about to call our base turn when another airplane called turning base. I started to look for it and had just pushed the push to talk button when I saw it low and to our right; so instead of 'where are you' in surprise I said 'Oh [expletive]' and then saw that he had seen us too and was starting to dive left so I took the controls from the student and climbed right. There was no further conflict. Prior to this happening we had approached the airport on the upwind; then crosswind; then downwind. While we were turning crosswind a plane on the runway called their departure so I was looking for them to make sure there was no conflict with them. The other plane in the pattern had made a radio call that he was inbound to the downwind; but due to distraction with the plane on the runway I never heard him say he was entering downwind and I assumed he was far ahead of us. We had made radio calls at each turn. I did not see him on downwind until we were ready to turn base. I do not think entering a pattern from upwind is a good idea; we should only enter to the downwind.


Synopsis: Two instructor pilots; both flying separate C172 aircraft; reported a NMAC with each other in the pattern.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working West Radar with all sectors combined to me. I descended Aircraft X to 6;000 MSL when he crossed into my airspace and told him to expect Runway XXL. Visual approaches were being advertised on the ATIS. I pointed out the field to him either abeam the field or just prior to that point and he called the runway in sight. I cleared him for the visual approach and shipped him to tower while he was on a north downwind. I did not observe any traffic for him along his route of flight. I was vectoring another aircraft for the visual approach to Runway XXR when Tower called down and said that Aircraft X reported an aircraft about 200 feet above him. I then looked and saw a primary target southeast bound that I was not talking to; nor had I seen him prior to shipping him. I called out to the supervisor that Aircraft X had an aircraft about 200 feet above him that I wasn't talking to. I continued to work my traffic and tracked the primary target until I got relieved from position about 5 minutes later.


Second narrative: Aircraft X contacted Tower in a wide right downwind; cleared for visual approach RWY XXL at ZZZ. I was working local control and cleared Aircraft X to land RWY XXL. After turning about a 12 mile right base; Aircraft X reported Aircraft Y a couple hundred feet above him a mile back. I informed Aircraft X that i was only showing a faint primary target a couple miles behind him; which usually indicates low level traffic or 'ghost' targets; and asked him to verify that the traffic was above him. Aircraft X confirmed that Aircraft Y traffic was a couple hundred feet above him; which would have been approximately 5;500 Feet MSL. I informed Approach Control of the traffic maneuvering above and outside of the Class C airspace and the CIC (Controller in Command) called the OS/FLM (Front Line Manager) to inform him of the situation.Upgrade ZZZ Class C airspace to increase the lateral limits; allowing us to accommodate airlines to extended final patterns and requiring VFR aircraft to have ADS-B and be talking to ATC within 12 miles at 5;500 Feet MSL.


Synopsis: TRACON and Tower Controller reported they were made aware by a pilot that an aircraft had flown above them while on descent causing an NMAC.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I departed RMN and obtained an IFR clearance with instructions to report over Brooke VOR squawking XYZX. We departed VFR as requested. Reported to Potomac approach over Brooke. Instructed to proceed direct to OTT VOR at 4000 MSL consider ourselves IFR. A few minutes later controller instructed us to turn right 20 degrees and our IFR was terminated; next controller instructed us to descend to a VFR altitude and switch frequencies to a new controller and tell him we were VFR. King Air traffic was called out to us before the switch which controller stated was not under her control. Reported into the new frequency and Controller had no idea who we were or that we were previously IFR and IFR terminated by controller. King Air traffic called out to us by new controller and King Air and we reported each other in sight. King Air military traffic crossed over us less than 500 feet vertical separation. Controller resumed our flight as IFR after inquiring our destination. I believe the initial controller canceled our IFR clearance when she realized there was going to be a conflict rather than issuing vectors for separation or coordinating with the adjacent sector controller. This action caused confusion by the next controller and ourselves in the cockpit. This action for the controller to initiate termination of IFR after accepting a flight as IFR is potentially dangerous to the safe conduct of a flight.




Synopsis: PA31 pilot reports departing RMN VFR to pick up an IFR flight plan airborne. An IFR clearance is issued then a few minutes later it is canceled and the reporter is told to turn 20 degrees right; descend to a VFR altitude and contact PCT on a different frequency. The new Controller points out traffic and the reporter deduces the IFR clearance cancellation was due to this traffic.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Aircraft: S-76/S-76 Mark II
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Rotor Hub
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other during walkaround
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During compliance with an Alert Service Bulletin with a calendar and hour limit; only partial compliance was performed on three Part 135 aircraft. The Service Bulletin states to perform and Non-Destructive/Visual Inspection on the main rotor spindle cuff assembly and then to apply a white paint to enhance the existing inspections. The Non-Destructive Inspections were performed; but the paint application was not; even though the log entry states the paint was applied. This was brought to the Director of Maintenance and Shop Foreman's attention in the form of verbal communication and written notification on two occasions. The Director of Maintenance ignored both notices and the Shop Foreman stated it was a waste of time. The aircraft were returned to service without the paint application as required by the Alert Service Bulletin. If a defect appears after the Non-Destructive Inspection; it may not be apparent during the required inspections. Any paint application after flight where a defect may occur may mask the defect and prevent the discovery by visual inspection. Since the aircraft has flown since the Non-Destructive Inspection; this inspection will have to be repeated prior to the application of the paint.




Synopsis: The reporter indicates that he notified company personnel that a step in the Service Bulletin procedure has not been accomplished.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After taking Runway XX I asked my student (FO) (First Officer) if he was ready and transferred the controls to him. We received the cleared for takeoff call from the Tower and we began our takeoff. The FO advanced the thrust levers and called for 'check thrust'. I verified the thrust and assumed control of the thrust levers. As I adjusted my scan back to the roll; I noticed that the auto throttle 'AT' indication was flashing and that the 'HOLD' indication did not appear as we passed 60 knots. At the same time a large flock of birds took off further down the runway in the takeoff path. At that time with multiple abnormalities occurring; I made the decision to reject the takeoff. We were below 80 knots and performed the rejected takeoff procedure IAW AOM1. After exiting the runway; I informed Tower of the situation and requested to taxi back to the runway. I then called the flight attendants to advise them of the issue and I also made a PA to the passengers informing them of the reject and to stay seated. We taxied back to the runway and held short for about 15 minutes to allow our brakes to cool. During this time; I explained to the FO that he had advanced the thrust levers past TOGO into max thrust which caused the auto throttles to disengage and go into max thrust. I also took the time to go over AOM1 procedures for takeoff.After our brakes had cooled to safe temperatures and checking our fuel we requested takeoff from the Tower. I performed the takeoff to demonstrate proper thrust lever movements to the student FO. After cleaning up the airplane and performing the after-takeoff checklist I called to arm the autopilot. Once the autopilot was engaged; I transferred the controls back to the FO and continued the flight without further incidence.[The cause was] improper power setting by pilot flying and large flock of birds in airport vicinity. [Suggestions include to] ensure proper thrust lever control from student FO [and] something to prevent large formations of birds near the airport.




Synopsis: Captain performed a rejected takeoff due to abnormal thrust indications and birds in flight path.
Date: 201308
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I called ramp service for an air conditioning truck several minutes into the boarding process. After another 15 minutes I called again. Passengers were complaining and I had started sweating profusely. I usually would not allow boarding to start; but at the beginning of boarding the temperature was about 79 degrees and I thought air conditioning was on the way. About halfway through boarding I started to feel nauseous and had to go out on the Jetway where it was cooler. That made a total of 3 times leaving my duties to ask for air conditioning. The pilot finally arrived and turned on the APU. He told me that boarding should not have started at that temperature.




Synopsis: When ramp personnel failed to obtain the requested air conditioning equipment the cabin temperature rose so high during passenger boarding the Flight Attendant reporter needed to exit the aircraft for relief. Ultimately a pilot arrived and started the APU to provide relief.