elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: G1000 with GFC700 autopilot flying with autopilot engaged. Setting up for VOR [approach] with arc and tuning course knob for VOR 1 and VOR 2. While turning course knob the altitude alert went off showing my altitude at 5;600 FT. I started a descent back to 4;000 FT and ATC asked me to say altitude. I advised I was at 4;600 FT descending back to 4;000 FT. I leveled at 4;000 FT and ATC requested me to say altitude; and I reported level at 4;000 FT. They responded that my mode C differs by 2;000 FT and to stop altitude squawk. I cancelled IFR. When cross checking the G1000 altitude with backup altimeter and they differed by almost 2;000 FT. The G1000 showing almost 2;000 FT higher than backup altimeter. Then I observed the barometric setting on the G1000 and it read 32.08 with the local altimeter 30.06. That caused the altitude discrepancy. The course knob and [altimeter barometric correction] knob are located together on the G1000. While turning the course knob I had my thumb and forefinger against the [barometric correction] knob and inadvertently rotated the [altimeter barometric correction] knob to 32.08 which started the above event. More diligent awareness when rotating knobs and a better scan and cross check before doing anything. It would not have happened at all if the [altimeter barometric correction] knob was not combined with any other knob but was a knob all by itself.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 was advised that his altimeter mode C altitude did not agree with his reported altitude. This was confirmed by comparing his G1000 altitude indicator against the back-up altimeter. The pilot then recognized that the altimeter barometric reading in the Kollsman window differed greatly from the local pressure. He surmised that he inadvertently adjusted the co-located barometric correction knob while attempting to adjust the autopilot course knob.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 840 (Jetprop)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: II was operating under Part 91 in support of the company. I had just leveled off at FL220. I retarded the thrust levers in order to set cruise power. As I retarded the right thrust lever; I noticed the horsepower would not decrease. In fact; the horsepower and exhaust gas temperatures increased. I quickly reduced thrust in an effort to stop the increase; unsuccessfully. Therefore; in order to prevent the engine from exceeding limitations; I elected to shut down the engine and moved the condition lever to the 'Emergency Stop' position; thus cutting fuel to the engine and feathering the propeller. I [notified] Center and expressed my intention to continue to a divert Airport. At that point; ATC cleared me direct to that Airport. I was given a pilot's discretion descent to 10;000 and then to 6;000. I was handed off to approach and was given pilot's discretion to 4;000. About 15 NM from the airport. I advised I had the field in sight and was cleared for a visual approach to the airport. About 10 NM from the airport; I canceled IFR and was given a telephone number to contact Approach to confirm we had landed safely.I entered the traffic pattern and flew left traffic to runway 17 right. I accomplished the Single Engine Approach and Landing checklist as I entered downwind. I landed on Runway 17 uneventfully and taxied to our maintenance facility. At that point I phoned Approach to advise that I landed safely. Approach did not advise me of any need to contact anyone else or complete any other paperwork.




Synopsis: Engine stopped responding to pilot inputs. Pilot shutdown the engine and diverted to an enroute airport.
Date: 201503
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi; Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Assigned from Airport Hotel to ferry an aircraft. It has come to my attention that we operated with the Ships Steering Tiller incorrectly installed. Apparently; the aircraft had just came out of heavy maintenance with the handle installed 180 degrees from the normal position.  Although; we carefully performed our preflight and checklist to ensure the aircraft was properly configured we didn't discover this discrepancy.  After the aircraft was secured for flight and under tow; I observed the tiller in an unusual position but rationalized it was because the aircraft was 'under tow.'  This was my first time at this airfield and unfamiliar with the airport environment.  After we got the engines started and received clearance to taxi; I focused on exiting the ramp; taxiing instructions and the route to the active runway.  I didn't look at tiller position and the position of the tiller didn't raise any flags.  Another issue; I did discover the Captain Crotch seat belt was improperly installed (the metal buckle which adjusts the length was backwards).  The seat belt did function normally.  A write up was made.


Second narrative: I was assigned a Reserve trip to Deadhead in order to fly back to ZZZ a B757 that has been in a Heavy 'C' Maintenance check. I was advised today; that the aircraft tiller was installed 180 degrees from its normal position by the maintenance facility. Although a thorough inspection and preflight was conducted; both of us missed the condition of the tiller. After the fact; the Captain mentioned to me that he noticed something unusual with the position of the tiller; but attributed it at the time; to the aircraft being towed. Afterwards; being in a new and unfamiliar airport; the concentration of the Captain and I was in taxiing the airplane safely; and nothing unusual was noticed as far as the tiller or its effectiveness to steer the aircraft.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew is assigned to ferry an aircraft that has just come out of heavy maintenance and does so with no anomalies noted. The crew is later informed that the nose wheel steering tiller was mounted 180 degrees out from the normal position.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Laptop Computer (performance; planning; etc.)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying C172 on an IFR flight from ZZZ to ZZZ. Was flying a RNAV approach to ZZZ. Soon after hand off to ZZZ Approach; I disconnected the autopilot when the aircraft was at about 4;000 feet AGL. At that time ATC advised to turn left to 220 heading to intercept initial approach fix. Right after disconnecting the auto pilot; the aircraft banked left steeply to about 60 degrees roll and started descending while the ATC keep advising to turn left and cleared me for the RNAV approach. The conditions were IMC and aircraft was hard to control. It took a few minutes to get the aircraft under control. The ATC workload obviously increased while not knowing the exact situation and even doubted at one point if the pilot (me) was IFR rated and current. Once I was finally able to get the aircraft stabilized; I informed ATC that I was having trouble with the controls and apologized. The flight ended safely after all at ZZZ. The probable cause was having an iPad mounted on the yoke. Will never mount the iPad on the yoke again.




Synopsis: C-172 pilot reported experiencing aircraft control difficulty caused by the yoke-mounted iPad.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the pit when I loaded an electric scooter. I asked leads loading prior to closing out the flight if this electric scooter was scanned they had said yes. Operations checked the Departure Staging Guide (DSTG) and noticed that the scooter did not show up on the DSTG as a dangerous goods item. We realized that the wrong tag was used to tag the electric scooter.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp personnel reported Dangerous Goods cargo not listed on aircraft cargo Departure Staging Guide (DSTG). Error corrected prior to departure.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Other Laser
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On visual approach to runway 4R to EWR. We had a bright green light beam shined at us that lit up the cockpit temporarily; then the laser beam was directly shined into my left eye. The First Officer was the flying pilot and I was the non flying pilot on this flight; the FO safely continued the approach and landed at EWR.I experienced pain and discomfort in my left eye for about 30-45 minutes due to the severe and direct exposure to the bright laser light beam. The approximate location was about 10 miles south of EWR as we joined the localizer; around the vicinity of a shopping mall which was to our west. EWR tower was notified and other aircraft following us also reported seeing the same event. The light beam caused temporary blindness with white lights and spots being seen in left eye.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain reported being targeted by a laser on approach to EWR and suffered physical effects for 30-45 minutes.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDPC.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MDPC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the arrival to PUJ (Punta Cana); we were navigating to PIXAR then via BORIG intersection. At that time Santo Domingo ATC handed us off to PUJ Approach Control. PUJ Approach Control stated that we were number 5 then corrected that we were now number 6 for the approach to Runway 08. We both noted that Santa Domingo and primarily PUJ seemed to be getting a little saturated as we had to prompt and request lower altitudes to be in a position to start the VOR/DME 08 approach. PUJ Approach cleared us for VOR/DME Runway 08 approach via BORIG (IAF) at 4;000 FT to the approach arc which was 2;000 FT; [and] then he stated OLEPI at 3;000 FT. We were intercepting the final approach course and in communication for clarification with PUJ when he then cleared us to a visual to Runway 08. I stated that we were just in the process of turning to the final inbound course and still in IMC conditions and could not accept that VFR visual clearance. After intercepting the final course at OLEPI; we were in and out of IMC and during the initial descent; we saw for a moment; traffic about 2 miles ahead and below us. At that time seeing how close we felt we were to that traffic and what appeared to be closing the separation and still in IMC conditions we requested a go-around. Approach Control instructed us to a 360 heading; then radar vectored us back into sequence to the original Runway VOR/DME 08 approach; we complied and continued to a normal arrival and landing. Because of the numerous radio exchanges; confusion about the clearance altitude over OLEPI; clearance of the IFR / Visual approach and perceived aircraft separation; we felt we may have had an ATC deviation.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports a go-around during approach to MDPC due to a perceived loss of separation with the preceding aircraft. The flight is vectored around for a second VOR DME Runway 08 approach to a successful landing.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MNMG.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center MHTG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tower sent us around on short final to Runway 10. We received instructions to climb to 4;000 feet. After passing the VOR we were instructed to turn right and proceed direct to the VOR for the ILS 2 Runway 10. As we approach the VOR we were then instructed to enter the holding pattern. The pattern was not showing on the FMS presentation so we attempted to call it up. I flew the approximate ground track but was unable to get the pattern up. We executed the approach after crossing the VOR again and the landing was uneventful. Avoid automation dependency. All I needed to do was to fly the holding pattern on raw data and we would have no problem. From now on I will have the VOR tuned; the PFD in the RMI mode and the green bearing showing and if necessary; just fly the pattern or procedures the old fashion way. I got lost in the magenta fog; never again.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain; on short final to MNMG; was issued a go around by the Tower then issued holding instructions at the MGA VOR which the reporter was not prepared to fly. He stated automation dependency was a factor.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: No violation occurred. We found a potential issue with an arrival and approach into Las Vegas. We were descending via the RNDRZ 1 Arrival into LAS. The bottom altitude at ROAMN is 8;000 ft. Prior to reaching ROAMN; we were cleared to join the localizer for the ILS1L after ROAMN. This approach has a ROAMN as the IAF/transition. When we closed the discontinuity to hook up ROAMN (common waypoint on the STAR and approach); the hard altitude of 8;000 ft. (per the STAR) dropped from the flight plan. The VNAV recalculated the descent; which would have left us about 600 ft. high over ROAMN. I pointed this out to the Captain (PF( Pilot Flying)) who then reprogrammed the FMS and added 8;000 ft. back as a hard altitude at ROAMN. I looked at several other STAR/approach combinations that all have common waypoints. For each one I found; both the STAR and the approach list the common way-point with the same hard altitude. The 1L ILS does not list ROAMN with a hard altitude of 8;000 ft. even though it is on the STAR. Does this need to be updated ? If not; when cleared for the approach prior to the IAF; are you relieved of the hard altitude on the STAR if the IAF isn't listed with one as is the case here?




Synopsis: First Officer reported confusion interpreting a clearance transitioning from a STAR to the ILS Approach.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAH
Aircraft component: ACARS Printer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our ACARS was deferred [with the] clock and printer inoperative but able to use any functions that worked. During set up ACARS and the printer operated normally. We briefed the departure (including the maintenance release status) approximately 20 minutes before schedule departure. A few minutes later we received an ACARS message that a new maintenance release was required as well as a status message on the printer advising the aircraft was ready for release. Before having an opportunity to address the maintenance status the lead flight attendant advised she was concerned about the location of an armed passenger and the status of a dog on board and advised another attendant had had a verbal conflict with a gate agent regarding overhead bin space and was asking for our intervention. Finally after dealing with these issues we pushed back and immediately realized we hadn't called maintenance about the unusual maintenance release status. Maintenance attempted to send the release to the printer but were unable. They then sent a truck out with a hard copy passed in through a cockpit window.  We; then; started engines and continued the flight uneventfully.


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


Synopsis: Broken and deferred communications functions of ACARS combined with conflicts between flight attendants and passenger agents created a chaotic pre-departure scene which culminated with the flight crew's failure to obtain a hard copy maintenance release prior to gate departure.