elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After pushback and engine start; power transfer; the center fuel tank boost pumps low pressure lights were illuminated. QRH; then dispatch and [Maintenance Control]; maintenance fixed the problem; signed off the logbook entry and we departed.  Upon arrival at [our destination] we were informed that the maintenance procedure for fully clearing the issue may not have been done correctly.


Second narrative: On push back from gate and after engine start; and after the first power transfer (putting the generators on the bus) we noticed that both center tank low pressure lights were illuminated. We coordinated through dispatch and [Maintenance Control] and we were told that maintenance would come out and reset the UFIs (Universal Fault Interrupter) I think was the term in the equipment compartment. We were told to leave the pumps on; and maintenance came out to us on taxiway kilo; opened the equipment door and completed the procedure; and the lights extinguished.We then taxied back to the gate so maintenance could sign off the logbook; we were pushed back again; and we had an uneventful flight.Upon exiting the airplane there were three mechanics on the jet way; and they were curious about the center tank low pressure lights. We explained what was done; and one of the mechanics told us that; that particular procedure that was done [at the departure airport] is no longer allowed. The mechanics now have to 'diagnose the problem; and analyze some data; before anything can be reset';The Captain and I were concerned that an improper procedure was done to fix a maintenance issue.


Synopsis: A 737 flight crew reported experiencing a fuel tank boost pump pressure issue after pushback and engine start. Maintenance personnel resolved the issue at the aircraft; however it was determined later that an improper procedure was used to troubleshoot the problem.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to pushback we receive a planned Dangerous Goods printout but not a final dangerous goods summary. The Captain spoke with the ramp Lead; Operations; Dispatch; the Chief Pilot; and Load Planning. We could not get a definitive answer or paperwork to confirm if the Dangerous Goods had been loaded or not. We did find out that the planned Dangerous Goods had not been loaded but 391 pounds of lithium ion batteries had been loaded. Lithium Ion batteries are listed in the manual as exempt from pilot notification but also they have certain prohibitions depending on packing and voltage. We had no way of knowing without paperwork. I expressed my concern about safety and legality to the Captain since I have read about numerous incidents with consumer product lithium batteries on aircraft as well as the NTSB's final report on the 787's that lists oversight on battery safety by Boeing and the FAA. Since we were on a duty time extension; the batteries were removed and we departed.


Second narrative: Before push back we received a planned DG [Dangerous Goods] message that was not followed by a final DG message. We asked load planning and operations what we had onboard but no one could give us a straight answer. So we contacted dispatch to gain clarification. Still no answer. The lead in ZZZ sent a picture of what he showed on the final DG but we never received a copy. We were then notified that the planned DG had not been loaded but that we had 391# of lithium batteries. We were uncomfortable with that so called the Chief Pilot; who pointed out the page reference regarding pilot notification and lithium batteries. We elected to pull the pallet in question so we could depart with all crew members comfortable regarding the safety of the items being transported.


Synopsis: B-787 flight crew reported refusing Hazmat cargo due to communications breakdown between flight crew and ground personnel regarding accuracy of DG data.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the FMS bridge visual 28R approach; on dogleg to final; between SAMUL and F101D; I was flying the approach manually; using the HUD; with LNAV and VNAV engaged. I followed the HUD commands closely and as I realized we were lower than normal; the Tower notified us that they were getting an altitude alert. I recall being above 500 FT. At that time; I was turning to line up with the runway. I leveled off and continued the approach to intercept the PAPI glide path; and landed the airplane. I do not have access to the FMC as I write this; but I do recall that there was a published glide path on this approach. I thought that this would allow the use of VNAV. I am not certain why the HUD commanded a greater than normal descent; but in the future this could be avoided by either engaging the ILS approach mode after SAMUL; or maintaining visual contact with the PAPI after SAMUL.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was included in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B737-800 flight crew received a low altitude alert from SFO Tower when they improperly used VNAV guidance during a FMS Bridge Visual to Runway 28R.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Tower, TX
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local Control. Aircraft X (small transport) pulled up to the runway and I put him in the drop down list for release for departure with TRACON. Aircraft Y (B757) pulled up behind Aircraft X and since I had not gotten the release from TRACON; I moved Aircraft Y around Aircraft X and cleared him for takeoff. After Aircraft Y rolled; I received the release and put Aircraft X in position and launched him 6;000 feet and airborne. I did not wait the full two minutes needed behind a B757.I forgot about the wake turbulence rule. Since RECAT and B757 being treated differently as it pertains to wake turbulence; the rule just slipped my mind. My recommendation would be for me to remember the rule.




Synopsis: DFW Tower Controller reported a loss of separation attributed to forgetting the 'RECAT' rules pertaining to a departure behind a B757.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C FAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS-Y on the ALTTA8. Aircraft was told to cross ALTTA at or above 4;000 [feet]. It appeared the aircraft did not intercept the localizer and continued current heading off of ALTTA and also continued to descend. Aircraft was told to turn to heading of 270 to intercept localizer and maintain 3;500 [feet]. Aircraft continued to descend. Low altitude alert was issued. Aircraft climbed and was reissued the ILS-Y.I will monitor the aircrafts approach more closely.




Synopsis: FAT Controller reported an aircraft cleared for the ILS-Y that did not intercept final and descended resulting in a Low Altitude Alert having to be issued along with a new approach clearance.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SGF.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp SGF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: SGF ramp is a power out ramp versus a pushback.  After starting both engines and doing the after start checklist; the capt asked to call for  taxi clearance.  As I was doing this; he released the parking brake and starting to power up.  The mechanic came on and said 'I'm still down  here'.  The capt stopped immediately and apologized profusely.  The mechanic said it was not a problem and signed off.  The marshaller  guided us out and we departed uneventful. This was just us not paying close enough attention.  When we are pushed back; we are used to hearing pushback crew say their 'speech'  about the pins and tug.  Of course we didn't hear this as it was a power out.  I guess it just threw us off.  No excuse for it; it just happened.  It sounds cliche but we just needed to pay better attention.  The capt felt horrible about it.  I don't think we rolled more than a foot or two but it  could've been bad had the mechanic not been paying attention.  I as FO will try and be better backup and consciously slow things down when  things aren't going 'according to script'.




Synopsis: Air Cargo First Officer describes an attempt to taxi out of the parking spot; forgetting that the Mechanic is still below the aircraft on the headset; waiting for the 'cleared to disconnect' command. The aircraft is quickly stopped and no injuries occur.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were at 100 feet AGL on the ILS 3R CAT II approach to landing in DTW when we hit wake turbulence from an MD80 that had landed before us. The left wing suddenly dipped down. I was able to correct it almost immediately but it scared me; considering this occurred at ~100 feet AGL. When I had the aircraft corrected and stable I was already over the runway and decided to continue to land; since I was probably only 50 feet over the runway and the aircraft was stable again.The wind was absolutely calm; 0 knots. Touchdown Zone RVR was 1400 feet; Mid RVR was 1200 feet; in heavy fog. During the approach; we were following an MD80 at 3 NM. I believe that this separation may not have been enough separation for a CAT II approach to prevent a wake turbulence encounter with calm winds.I think that ATC should have separated us a little further apart during this approach and under these conditions. Maybe 5 NM separation would be a good idea.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at 100 feet AGL on approach to DTW in trail of an MD80.
Date: 201310
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On climbout encountered moderate turbulence at 3;000 MSL. At approximately 4;000 MSL severe turbulence and windshear. Escape maneuver proceeded with airspeed swing from approximately 200 KTS to 290 KTS then back to approximately 210 KTS. Max pitch up approximately 20 degrees; Max bank approximately 30 degrees. Engines not over boosted. Speeds and pitch estimates due to inability to read flight instruments due to turbulence. Incident reported to ATC; Dispatch and Maintenance. First Officer is to be commended for calling out airspeeds and assisting in situational input throughout event. Incidentally; the only other bona fide wind shear event that I have ever encountered in 38 years of flying was also with this First Officer. While we train for windshear in the simulator the only component missing would be abrupt lateral bank changes and loss of visual acuity due to severe turbulence.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports entering severe turbulence and windshear at 4;000 FT with airspeeds of plus and minus 45 KTS and bank angles to 30 degrees. Inability to read flight instruments accurately due to turbulence also reported.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback from gate; our right wing was pushed back into the vertical stabilizer of another aircraft parked at gate [a nearby gate].




Synopsis: A Boeing flight crew reported that their right wing made contact with another aircraft during pushback.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Flow Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon initial climbout I [noticed] engine observation showed that the fuel flow was indicating 0 GPH (Gallons Per Hour) and all other fuel indications were blank; attempted to troubleshoot with no success. PFD (Primary Flight Display) then began to indicate 0% power while MFD (Multi-function Flight Display) showed a normal power setting. I contacted Departure and asked to return to [the departure airport]. Aircraft on takeoff was within the takeoff limitations but was above the landing limitation for weight. Having turned around so quickly the aircraft was still heavy; I implemented a soft field landing for touchdown due to heavy weight; contacted Maintenance and wrote up the plane.




Synopsis: SR20 flight instructor reported malfunctioning fuel flow indication resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to taxi and was told to remain on the frequency. Aircraft X initiated some form of conversation about what they thought was a better taxi route which impeded upon landline coordination with ground control. Control instructions were restated as well as communications transfer to ramp control. Aircraft X was observed entering the ramp control via a taxiway which was neither coordinated nor authorized by ATC personnel.Two Memorandums are located within the red read and initial binder. They are Quality Assurance/Quality Control Alert Bulletins which repeatedly use the phrase 'POSITIVE CONTROL' in bold lettering. Please explain how aircraft not following ATC instructions could ever be considered positive control? Whether it be by their own initiative or by ramp controller prerogative does not matter. Not following ATC instructions and this facility always justifying it as an acceptable practice is UNSAFE.The current Ramp Letter of Agreement (LOA) is unsafe. IT IS NOT BEING FOLLOWED by most of the workforce to include air traffic controllers; pilots; and ramp operators. If the LOA is not being followed it is a safety issue that is not being addressed.Recommend that feedback is solicited and used as a determining factor in LOA development. Controllers should not be briefed on a new LOA without being afforded the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes to operating procedures.Recommend that LOAs are not developed which IMPLY increased landline coordination is feasible. The controller work load should never be increased to improve ramp efficiency. This LOA is driven by efficiency and not safety. Safety should be the priority; and increasing coordination at an already busy position is not safe.If the Local Control position already has to talk to every plane landing; as well as make a recorded landline communication for 50 percent of the departure aircraft; should the LOA imply that they now have time to make a ramp control landline communication for 30 percent of the arrival aircraft?




Synopsis: PHL Tower Controller states their facility LOA with Ramp Control is unsafe and is not being complied with.