elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our APU was deferred inoperative so a crossbleed start was required. The First Officer told Ground we needed to start one engine at the gate and then would crossbleed start the other after pushback. Ground said; 'Cleared to start one at the gate; cleared to push on to Taxiway Bravo; and cleared to crossbleed start the other engine once on Taxiway Bravo.'We started one at the gate; pushed to Taxiway Bravo; cleared off the Ground Crew; and did a crossbleed start the other engine. We called for taxi and a different Ground Controller cleared us to taxi to Runway 27 on Bravo and asked us if we were going to crossbleed start during taxi.We replied; 'No. We have already started the engine.' Ground said to crossbleed start; we should be perfectly aligned with the taxiway; parallel with the runway. I estimate that there was a 20 degree angle between our aircraft alignment and the taxiway. We said that we understood for future starts and taxied to the runway. We heard Ground Control call an airport vehicle to check the area where we had done our start; but had no further contact on the matter from Ground or Tower.I haven't done many crossbleed starts but I plan to talk with Ground or Ramp Control to determine if there are particular procedures for the airport. The first Ground Controller could have been more specific about our start on Taxiway Bravo.




Synopsis: After performing a crossbleed start of their second engine after pushback onto Bravo taxiway per clearance from Ground Control the flight crew of a B737-300 was informed by a new Ground Controller that they were improperly aligned on the taxiway when they performed the start and that an airport vehicle was enroute to check the area for any blast damage.
Date: 201411
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am writing this statement in regards to an Airbus 320 aircraft. The Aircraft is currently undergoing a C-Check at ZZZ Hangar. During the preliminary Inspection; unusual wear was found on both Left and Right Main Landing Gear Door Fittings. Both doors were removed in order to effect repairs. While removing both doors; they were both found to be missing the Shim material that is installed on/around the hinge pin/bolt area. This is done so that during the final 'rig' on installation; the doors will fair correctly with the Fuselage along with reducing/eliminating any fore and aft play about the hinge centerline. It is believed that the lack of having shims installed contributed to the wear that occurred. Multiple structural parts were damaged beyond limits and had to be replaced with new parts. While the Doors were off the Aircraft; it was also discovered that one of the Hinge fitting fastener holes in the Keel beam was not within specifications; 'oblong'; these fasteners secure the door hinge fitting to the Keel beam. Currently our Air Carrier Engineers are in talks with Airbus EG in order to adequately address the mis-drilled hole.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports that both left and right Main Landing Gear (MLG) door hinge fittings were found with unusual wear on an A320 aircraft. Multiple structural parts were damaged beyond limits due to missing shim material on/around the MLG door hinge pin/bolt areas.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified today that I flew an aircraft with tape on a static port.  I was never notified by the First Officer who conducted the preflight and post flight that anything was wrong or out of place.   We or ATC never noticed any altitude irregularities.  I had no indication that anything was out of place or wrong during flight.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain is informed after the fact; that he flew an aircraft with tape on one of the static ports.  Neither the crew nor ATC noted any airspeed or altimeter irregularities.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During boarding a guest arrived with what appeared to be a vented mask. As I initiated a conversation I received a frustrated response that he had traveled with the mask often. He had taped the valves shut and said there had been no prior issues. Acknowledging his concerns and actions he had taken with his mask; I referenced our face mask policy and the absence of any guidance on taping valves. I let the guest know I would return after consulting with other FAs and the Gate Agent.FA B and I felt although the vents were noted the valves were not referenced in the policy. Gate informed us they would be happy to have a conversation about this with the guest and would bring a disposable mask on board. I elected to document the event and inform the guest he may be directed to take a different mask in the future.  Please follow up with proper guidance to the flight crew and guest.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant reported a passenger was using a face mask with vents.  The passenger had taped over the vents and Flight Attendant stated policy did not specifically address the taping of the vents.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 06N.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Randall Airport; 06N; in Middletown New York has often been a decent place to train. Runway 8 is noted as having a substantial displaced threshold and the winds on that day favored it. At 150 feet AGL my student elected to go-around and when I questioned why they said; 'I cannot read any of the runway markings nor see the displaced threshold.' They were right to do what they did. The runway is in a sad state of repairs with large cracks and areas of heaving. But worse; the paint is so faded that an unsafe landing could be made without even knowing it on the displaced threshold(s) especially on Runway 8. I implore the appropriate people be contacted so the owner/operator of this field can do some maintenance on this field to keep it open; safe; and operational.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported the runway and runway numbers are faded and difficult to see at 06N airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
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: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: It was the second time in a row that I have had a problem with ATC terminology while descending via the ALDAN 1 arrival into KRDU; but I will just stick to today's event. When north of SBV we were cleared to descend via the ALDAN 1 arrival with a speed assignment. At some point; Washington Center said 'resume normal speed.' This is an ambiguous clearance...does it mean 'delete speed restrictions' or 'comply with published speeds?'I possess an FAA document titled 'Climb via/Descend via speed clearances faqs' from which I quote the last page...21Q 'The controller had issued a speed for me to maintain. Later; the controller says 'resume normal speed'. Can I fly a speed at my discretion?Answer: Yes; but a controller can only issue that clearance if you are NOT on a published portion of a procedure that contains speed restrictions. If there are published speeds; the correct clearance would be 'delete speed restrictions' or 'resume published speed'We asked for which one of these he wanted. He admonished us for not knowing what normal speeds were. We could not obtain clarification from him as he did not seem to understand the ambiguity. We were transferred to approach control; where we had to ask for clarification. He immediately resolved it by giving us a speed and altitude direct to the outer marker. Problem solved.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported confusion about their speed assignment due to the Controller using incorrect phraseology.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the descent into ZZZ; we received an ACARS message stating 'Ramp called right after you took off to say that there are 3 pieces of Class 3 Flammable Liquid in position 1 that are not accounted for on the manifest.' During my DG inspection; Class 3 was listed on the manifest as one of four classes in the container. Everything was compatible. I did require the agent to better tie down two packages; which I believed could move in turbulence. They were covered by the net; but there was about a foot gap from the top of the packages to the net. The agent got some rope and properly secured the packages inside the netting. I did not find any other discrepancies. DG agent did not properly account for all DG pieces on the manifest. If DG is scanned into the [company] system; it should automatically show up on the manifest.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported airborne notification of on-board Hazmat shipment incorrectly listed on aircraft manifest.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on at BAMBO. He was difficult to understand (foreign pilot) and it was the first time we had seen this call sign at HCF. I was coordinating with another controller offline about the company call sign. Also there was [weather] approaching HNL and I was getting pilot reports from aircraft on final about 40 knot tailwinds on downwind. This high tailwind into a high headwind increased the complexity of determining spacing and turns onto final. HNL runway 8L was shortened to 9;100 feet.When Aircraft X checked in at BAMBO I missed that he did not report in with the proper ATIS code. I later found this out through tape reviews. Aircraft X was assigned Runway 8 from BAMBO vectored for and turned onto final [about] 10 miles outside of the final approach fix. Aircraft X rolled through the 8 feet barrier that was shortening Runway 8.Just make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed because even when excellent service is provided it is our job to ensure each pilot has the appropriate ATIS code.




Synopsis: HNL Controller reported not ensuring aircraft had the ATIS; resulting in a runway excursion upon landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FRG
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying near FRG; we got a yellow TCAS target with no altitude given. We were aware we were low over an airport and scanned the area. The target eventually disappeared and we assumed it was a false return. The Captain (Pilot Monitoring) happened to glance over his left shoulder and gave a startled exclamation and informed me that we came very close to a drone. We did see the yellow target reappear on TCAS with no altitude for a moment after that. He then reported to ATC; who asked for details (it was black and green). It was already behind us at this point and no further action was taken in regards to aircraft operation. I personally never saw the drone; only the TCAS target so I'm unable to say how close we really came. I'm confident we did everything we could to mitigate the risk. The appearance on TCAS was fast and intermittent. Given the lack of altitude information it made it harder to see where to look. After we'd reported the issue to ATC and left the proximity; we could here ATC warn other aircraft in the vicinity; but we never heard anyone else say anything and we switched frequencies soon after.




Synopsis: An Air carrier pilot reported a NMAC with a Drone.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There was no separation error or loss of separation. This is [to] report the inefficiency of the new NOTAM procedure where we have to read all NOTAMs that are applicable to the approach. As Controllers we are not 100% trained to know what the NOTAMs mean to the pilots; I had to decipher through 13 NOTAMs for 2 different pilots both in a short amount of time; which resulted in me being behind on other items that I feel were a higher priority (i.e. separating aircraft in the NAS).The work ended up getting done; but the information needs to come to us more streamlined; it is an unreasonable expectation to expect Controllers to be able to read all NOTAMs to each pilot doing an approach. Especially when we have to read through them and decipher which ones apply and which ones don't.When clicking on an approach in ERIDS (En-Route Information Display System); the NOTAMs that are displayed should be the ones pertinent to the approach. For example; when you click the ILS Runway 18; it should list all pertinent NOTAMs for only that approach; instead of having us find the 3 out of 13 that are pertinent.I feel that the current procedure is a major distraction from the work that the radar controller should be doing; and if they are busy; an important NOTAM may be missed. The information needs to be streamlined and given to us in a foolproof manner.




Synopsis: ZOB Controller reported problems associated with reading and understanding NOTAMs that may or may not be pertinent to the operation.
Date: 201501
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Push-back
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Pushback and Landing
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After installing the RAM TAB-TITE mount as described in the company Bulletin and insuring its security; the mount with the iPad fell off during pushback. The RAM mount and iPad fell in such a way as to cause the Captain's Minitel to become unplugged; losing communications with the pushback crew.During the landing rollout; the RAM mount again fell causing a substantial distraction.




Synopsis: Despite having followed his air carrier's bulletin describing the proper installation of his suction cup style EFB mount; the Captain of an A319 experienced two instances of attachment failure on one flight; once during pushback; disconnecting his headset; and again during the landing rollout.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; 2.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring on the initial climbout from ZZZ when I noticed my FO (First Officer) was nose high and banking to the right approximately 40 degrees with airspeed decreasing from 95 KTS to 85 KTS. I asked why he was turning as were supposed to be climbing left to ZZZZZ. He seemed confused by my question and I realized that he had lost situational awareness. I declared 'My Plane' at which point he gave a positive transfer of controls. I leveled the wings and regained a positive rate of climb before turning back onto course. After regaining stable flight I offered the controls back to my FO. He refused controls and I continued to fly. I told him he had the radios and told him to check in with departure. Center asked us why we had turned to the right off of our expected heading and my FO was honest with the Controller; informing him that he had lost control of the aircraft and heading had diverged prior to me regaining control of the aircraft. The Controller acknowledged and told us to climb according to our planned route. After reaching cruising altitude I debriefed my FO and we discussed what went wrong. We ultimately determined that the loss of control was due to deficiencies in his scan as a result of his inexperience with analog instruments.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a recovery from unusual attitude and a track heading deviation during initial climb.