elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On walkaround; First Officer (F/O) noted both Fuel Vents were installed backwards.  That is; rather than venting the tanks; the fuel vent ducts were pressurizing the tanks.  The airplane had been flying this way for over two and a half weeks.  The Fuel Vents had been removed in May 2014; and left and right sides were switched at installation.




Synopsis: A Captain reports the First Officer (F/O) noticed during his walkaround that the Left and Right Fuel Vent scoops had been installed backwards on their B757 aircraft. Rather than venting the tanks; the Fuel Vent ducts were pressurizing the tanks.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SMF.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C SMF
ATC / advisory: Ground SMF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi from Gate B20 to Runway 34R via Taxiway Y; Y-2; C-1; D. The First Officer read back the clearance to Ground Control and I acknowledged the read back while looking at the airfield diagram and visualizing that we would taxi east on Y then join Y-2 which extends straight ahead of Y; then make a slight right turn onto C-1 at the end of Y2.  My mistake is that as I looked at the chart; I thought Y-2 was the east-west portion of the taxiway as it extended between two islands. In actuality; Taxiway Y-2 is a short north-south taxiway connecting taxiway W to taxiway C-1 and the ramp. As we approached the intersection; the First Officer did a good job and intervened by verbalizing that we were supposed to turn right. I was not mentally prepared for the turn and in the few seconds it took me to recognize my mistake; we missed the turn. Sacramento Ground Control noticed the mistake and re-cleared us to taxi via Y-1; W; D to Runway 34R. To me; the airfield diagram is misleading. I would prefer to see Taxiway Y-2 labeled vertically in the same direction as the taxiway orientation. The actual location of the letters on the current airfield diagram dated (date) led me to believe it runs east-west. For an example; see the LAX airport diagram regarding many of their north-south taxiways like D-7; D-8; D-9; etc.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported confusion referencing an airport diagram that resulted in deviation from a taxi clearance.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; after moving flap handle from flap 2 position into flap 1 position we received two EICAS caution messages; Windshear fail and Ground proximity fail. Told First Officer to run QRH. On PFD the speed sequenced to 250 KTS and there were no flap speed bugs. We then noticed that flap/slat indication on EICAS were showing amber; but with no slat/flap fail EICAS messages. The flap handle was in the flap 1 position for approximately 45 seconds before calling flaps up; plenty of time for flaps to move to position 1 or to receive flap/slat fail or flap low rate; neither of which did we get. Passing through 200 KTS I called for flaps up; and when flap selector was put into flap 0 position the EICAS messages extinguished and at the same time the flap speed went to 215 KTS on PFD while we were at 220 KTS. We had overspeed aural warning for approximately 1 second before reducing idle and speed below 215 KTS. After flight I made maintenance logbook entry and contacted Maintenance.


Second narrative: No additional information.


Synopsis: EMB175 flight crew experiences EICAS caution messages for windshear fail and ground proximity fail when the flap handle is moved from position 2 to position 1 after takeoff. The flap speed bugs disappeared from the airspeed tape and the EICAS flap position indicated amber. When flaps are selected up all systems return to normal and a brief flap overspeed occurs.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff from our departure airport; my student and I experienced significant unexpected turbulence and wind shear that causes us to make the decision to return to our departure airport. We were vectored for the ILS and intercepted the localizer at the proper altitude and were then cleared the visual approach. At that point we encountered even more significant wind shear and turbulence causing us to descend below the minimum altitude for an ILS approach. During the loss of altitude we had just switched to the Tower frequency and were cleared to land at which point Tower relayed a message from TRACON saying 'altitude alert' and that we were below the published altitude on the approach. I confirmed to Tower we had the field and terrain in sight and that we were unable to maintain altitude. Although a significant crosswind had picked up since our departure; an uneventful landing followed.


Second narrative: Immediately after takeoff from our departure airport; while with my flight instructor; I experienced significant unexpected turbulence and wind shear that causes us to make the decision to return to our departure airport. We were vectored for the ILS and intercepted the localizer at the proper altitude and were then cleared the visual approach. At that point we encountered significant wind shear and turbulence causing us to descend below the minimum altitude for an ILS approach. During the loss of altitude we had just switched to the Tower frequency and were cleared to land at which point Tower relayed a message from TRACON saying 'altitude alert' and that we were below the published altitude on the approach. I confirmed to Tower we had the field and terrain insight and that we were unable to maintain altitude. Although a significant crosswind had picked up since our departure; an uneventful landing followed.


Synopsis: PA-46 Flight Instructor and student reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to landing when they were having difficulty maintaining altitude in turbulence and wind shear conditions.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other I discovered it
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Equipment / Tooling; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to replace a crew oxygen bottle on a live through flight. In the process; I lost the nut that secures the clamp that secures the crew oxygen bottle in place. So I went to our shop stock room to find a replacement nut. We did not have the exact nut; but I found one that fit; so I used it to secure the oxygen bottle in place. But this nut had a locking feature that made it harder to start on the clamp 'T' bar threads and then it got easy to tighten. Because of this; I may have over-tightened the clamp or damaged the threads on the 'T' bar. A contributing factor could be the pressure to avoid causing flight delays due to aircraft maintenance tasks. I am submitting this ASRS report and I contacted (Company) Maintenance Control (MOC) about this incident to make sure that the crew oxygen bottle is installed correctly and ensure the flight safety of this B737-700 aircraft and the passengers that fly on it. Evening shift. [Recommend] stocking the correct hardware for the crew oxygen bottle replacement and understanding from our Management team that sometimes flight delays caused by aircraft maintenance work are unavoidable. Aircraft later corrected.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports he may have over-tightened the clamp or damaged the threads on a 'T' bar strap that secures the crew oxygen bottle on a B737-700 aircraft. Lack of available correct replacement hardware and pressure to avoid maintenance delays were also noted by Technician.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS 22L and we were given a turn to join the Localizer just past TEB. The controller left us at 250kts and finally started slowing us down as we were turning final; first to 190kts and then right before GIMEE he gave us 170kts. We started slowing down using the speed brake and once we were slow enough I asked if the First Officer (FO) wanted the landing gear to help slow down. We continued slowing and configuring for the approach and we were still just slightly behind the aircraft but we were catching up. Once we were on the descent; I asked the FO if he would like me to arm the approach. I armed the approach and the autopilot captured the localizer course but it didn't capture the glideslope; it switched to Flight Path Angle (FPA) mode. I suggested using the Touch Control Steering (TCS) button to get the aircraft back on the correct glideslope. I also suggested disconnecting the autopilot to get the aircraft back onto the correct path. We were still slightly high at 1200 feet but we were getting back down onto the glideslope. Once we were slow enough; the FO called for flaps 5; speed V APP; landing checklist. Distracted by trying to keep the aircraft on the proper glideslope; I selected flaps FULL and then read through the landing checklist. We were configured by 1000' and stable but after finishing the landing checklist I double checked the flap setting and realized at around 700 feet we had flaps full selected. I called for a go-around and we performed the go around with no other issues. I do believe that most of this could have been avoided if the controller didn't leave us so fast in such gusty conditions. Throughout the entire approach we had intermittent moderate chop.




Synopsis: Captain reported to executing a go-around due to an unstable final ILS approach attributed to a high airspeed clearance until on final.
Date: 201509
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: PA-34-200T Turbo Seneca II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Familiar airport 45 NM from home field. Familiar with CTAF frequency. Weather checked on [computer software]; frequencies confirmed. Calls made at 15 miles; 10 miles; 5 miles and as crossing midfield for left down wind runway 18. Downwind base and final called; only one aircraft observed leaving the pattern; none seen on ground. Uneventful landing runway 18; opposing traffic identified shortly after touchdown.  Both aircraft moved to opposite sides of runway and stopped prior to contact.  CTAF had been changed 2 weeks prior; no one heard my position reports as I was broadcasting on the old CTAF FREQUENCY!Several factors contributed to this conflict. I self briefed from [computer software] which contained the old CTAF.  I didn't check AWOS having already checked weather and due to the short flight and familiarity with airport.  The incident occurred on a holiday so I didn't take the absence of radio traffic as unusual nor did I think it could have meant that the CTAF frequency might have changed. I will always check AWOS no matter the circumstances.  I will continue to broadcast position reports but will be more vigilant of air and ground traffic. Could the local flight school and Unicom monitor both the old and new frequencies for some period of time?  This might help prevent a similar episode.




Synopsis: A pilot departed his home field for a familiar nearby CTAF field after a self-brief and upon landing discovered active traffic on the runway. The airport's CTAF frequency had been changed two weeks earlier.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing all required checklist and announcing our taxi out; our intention to takeoff on Runway 4 (twice) the PF (I was the PNF) and I performed a perfectly standard initial takeoff procedure; including (PF) announcing that the final was clear and the (PNF) announcing that the downfield looked clear.  During the takeoff we both notice a small bird on our direct takeoff path.  The bird passed by the aircraft with no incident or abnormal engine indication.  V1 was called and shortly there after the PF announced that he saw an aircraft on the runway and immediately started the aircraft rotation (slightly below Vr).  As the PNF I noticed the lower than normal speed and the aircraft on the runway in front of us; so I immediately lowered our flaps to 15 degrees to assist in the required takeoff lift.  We passed  over  the other aircraft; whom never announced their position (there was another aircraft inbound '10 miles out' that we both heard on the  radio clearly).  We performed a normal climbout and checklists without further incident.




Synopsis: HS 125 Captain reported noticing an aircraft on the same runway opposite direction during their takeoff roll at an uncontrolled airport. The Captain stated they rotated immediately after noticing the aircraft.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FRG
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The helicopter has one radio with two intercom mods: 1) The hot mic; both occupants can freely talk and listen to the controller. However when one person is transmitting; the other can't hear what is transmitted.2) The PTT mic; for which the occupants have to press a button in order to talk to each other. However when one person is transmitting a radio call the other can hear the transmission.My student and I went for a flight with purpose to prepare him for his first solo. He was almost ready; so we agreed that he will do the radio communications today. We switched over to PTT mic for this initial call. On the ramp he called ground for taxi clearance. We were cleared to taxi and to hold short of the active Runway 19 at Bravo 3. The student had the controls and was taxiing to Bravo Taxiway and hold short of Runway 19. Also we switched intercom mode back to 'hot mic'. We were holding at Bravo at the approach end of Runway 1 due to traffic at the nearby Bravo runup area and additional traffic on the Bravo taxiway. At this time the airport was very busy and a lot of planes arrived for touch and goes. After holding short at Bravo for a bit; Ground called us to taxi and to hold short at Bravo 3. However my student understood that we were cleared to cross the runway expeditiously - which I did not hear because of the hot mic setup - and he accelerated the helicopter quickly forward. At this time I was focused on the departing traffic which just passed us and also the airplane turning base to final I didn't see any other traffic on the runway. I was bewildered that he went forward and was also checking with the student about if we really got the clearance to cross. At this time we were already about half way across the runway and ground control told us that we were not cleared to cross the runway. I took the controls immediately and finished crossing to the other side to Golf taxi way to get off the active runway as fast as possible. The ground controller informed us about a possible pilot deviation and we held short on Golf until we received the clearance to cross the Runway 19 back to the ramp. We decided to discontinue the flight. No further incidents occurred.




Synopsis: R22 Instructor reported a runway incursion after a miscommunication between the student pilot and the Controller.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were cleared direct on base leg and we called the airport in sight and shot the Visual Approach backed up by the ILS. As we were descending down we noticed the lights on the runway were dim. The approach lights were bright. We cycled the lights but only the approach lights were working. We executed the go around and turned downwind runway. We tried to run numbers for other runways but ACARS was not responding. So landing data was determined on the release. The length showed we could land on the runway. We did a quick brief for the runway. After we landed it seemed that runway was not that wide. We pulled in to the gate and noticed that runway was only 75 feet wide. When we looked up the data on the release it was noticed we pulled the wrong numbers. It started because the runway lights were not working; in the progress of coming back around the release landing data was misread. To avoid this event a better brief could have helped. Both pilots double check the release for data.


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


Synopsis: A CRJ-200 flight crew and dispatcher reported the flight crew landing at a non towered airport executed a missed approach due to the Runway Lights not working and landed on an intersecting runway that was not designated wide enough for their aircraft.