elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D UAO
ATC / advisory: Tower UAO
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was cleared for takeoff by the Tower Controller on Runway 17 at UAO. When starting my takeoff roll I requested a 'right turnout and then departure to the NW;' which was approved. At 500 feet AGL I turned right to a NW heading of approximately 320. When I reached 1;000 feet AGL I saw an aircraft on a northerly heading that was descending and going to cross paths with me. The aircraft was approaching me from the left (from the south) and I believe they were on a right downwind for Runway 17 at UAO. I felt that this distance was way too close for comfort and so I immediately stopped my climb and turned left to close the distance between me and the other aircraft before it descended to my altitude. I passed under the aircraft at approximately 100 feet below their altitude. I felt that if I had turned right instead passing under them; the pilot could have descended onto the top of my airplane. I initially thought I had possibly done something wrong and waited for ATC to scold me (or the other plane) for the loss of separation. Nothing ever came over ATC and I continued out of the airspace. As I thought more about the incident; I realize that I was flying exactly as I was cleared to by ATC. I'm not sure if the other pilot was incorrect; or lack of situational awareness by ATC. I'm still unsure. In the future I would make sure to advise ATC of the situation immediately instead of staying quiet.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft while departing UAO airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While level at 5;500 ft. and at 170 kts. and on the RNDRZ 1 RNAV; ATC asked us to fly heading 090. ATC gave us a left turn toward Runway 25L. ATC asked us if we had Runway 25L in sight. We responded that we had Runway 25L in sight. We were cleared a visual approach for Runway 25L and made a normal landing. As ATC noted on my phone call to them regarded a possible navigational deviation error; ATC admitted that they are having trouble with their new arrival charts. The ATC person told me that there have been many errors by pilots and agreed the chart is confusing to pilots and this problem needs to be re-examined. After reviewing the arrival chart at the gate; my First Officer and I noted that what is depicted on the arrival chart is not what is depicted on our PFD. On the chart; a small box is depicted at intersection 'BERBN' to look for another box for the runway transitions and its very confusing and can be easily missedThis RNDRZ 1 RNAV arrival needs to be examined and rectified so as to not confuse pilots as was noted by our ATC Specialist during our phone conversation.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain reported the STAR chart for the LAS RNDRZ 1 RNAV arrival is confusing and does not match the aircraft PFD.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At top of descent number 2 throttle stuck at 92%; unable to move the throttle. Descended with Engines 1 and 3 at idle. Number 2 throttle remained physically stuck in the same position throughout the descent. At 10;000 FT Captain took control of the aircraft and First Officer assumed pilot not flying duties. Completed the Engine Shutdown Checklist and made an approach in IMC conditions. At approximately 700-800 FT executed a missed approach due to a headwind windshear alert. Flew a 2 Engine Missed Approach and landed uneventfully on a different runway.




Synopsis: DC10 First Officer discovers the number two thrust lever is stuck at 92% N1 when starting descent. The descent is continued to 10;000 FT where the engine is shut down and the Captain takes the controls for landing. A windshear alert at 800 FT results in a go-around with a second approach to a different runway being successful.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Handed off to final approach controller.  We're assigned 3400 feet but both of us heard 3000 feet.  We descended to 3000 feet on downwind for Runway 30. Upon leveling 3000 feet controller called us and said to climb to 3400 feet terrain alert.  We immediately climbed to 3400 feet.  Weather was VMC and the EGPWS showed we were above all terrain as well as we had everything in sight. The controllers radio was very weak and hard to hear.  We both thought we heard 3000 feet and read that back to controller.  He did not respond with a corrected altitude.  After the event we reported to him his radio was very weak - we had to turn our volume up full.  He changed transmitters and everything returned to normal levels.  Also reported that we read back 3000 feet - he missed it.I should have reported the radio on initial contact - I assumed it was going to improve as we got closer. There were no separation issues and terrain and airport was in sight the whole time.The controller did a great job of trapping the altitude and overall I thought the situation was handled very professionally by all concerned.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew report receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to OAK after misunderstanding altitude clearance.
Date: 201811
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were instructed to cross KIRKM at FL360. The FMC was properly programmed and FL360 set in the altitude window. I noticed that the FMC was only giving us nine miles to lose 4000 FT. I mentioned it to the First Officer and he started a Vertical Speed descent. I was distracted by reviewing the STAR and approach procedures. ATC asked if we were going to make the crossing. When I looked back we were over 1000 FT high with less than five miles to the crossing. I informed ATC we would not make the crossing. He said there was traffic at FL370 and to expedite the descent. This is an ongoing issue with VNAV descents of short duration at high altitude. It comes up with unrealistic profiles. I should have watched better when it was apparent the First Officer was unfamiliar with this oddity of the VNAV system. When asked he said that he had started down at 2200 FPM but then noticed that we were low on the path so he went back up to the VNAV path by slowing the descent rate. In doing so we went back to the original problem.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they failed to make an altitude crossing on descent into PHX when they failed to monitor FMC performance closely enough.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: B18.Airport, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: UNICOM B18
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I had checked NOTAMs and called our destination airport [and learned there were] good 'ice runway' and surface conditions due to a small snow accumulation earlier that day; winds were calm. I overflew the airport; called UNICOM but got no answer; reported my position and intentions. Flag was down; no wind; checked AWOS at a nearby airport where winds were 220 at 7K. I flew a wide approach for RWY 19 and landed on the first 1/3 of the plowed [ice] runway; retracted flaps and felt I had plenty of length to stop. A safe landing was never in doubt until late in the roll out when I lost all braking action in the last 300 feet or so. We hit a snow bank at the very end of RWY 19 at 5 to 10K as I was unable to turn into the parking space due to total lack of traction.




Synopsis: An SR-22 pilot lost braking action during rollout on an ice runway and exited the runway striking a snow bank.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X was reminded to keep mask on several times. Mr. X continued to pull his mask down and have conversations with other passengers around him right after takeoff after being asked to keep his mask over his nose and mouth. Passenger Y rang call light to inform us Passenger X was not wearing mask. Passenger X was traveling with Passenger Z. Both passengers were served several rounds of wine and asked for more and was told that were out of wine. During pilot break the D FA was blocking and signaled for more line. D FA did not move and told her to wait a second. Passenger X rang call light while D FA was blocking. B FA responded to call light and informed them they were cut off because they would not comply with face mask policy. Passenger Z also came to front galley and asked for more wine after being told we were out. During the pilot break C FA also came up and spoke with Mr. X about mask policy. Passenger X became argumentative and used profanity with C FA. Passenger X was given several warnings and was also issued a [warning] by C FA.Passengers X and Z should be banned from flying on [airline] from this point forward until the mask policy is over. Other passengers should not have to feel unsafe and crew member should to jeopardize their health by having to confront these passengers with their mask off.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that two passengers were non-compliant with face mask policy; despite multiple requests from other flight attendants. Flight Attendant reported one of those passengers became argumentative and used profanity.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Based on the final cockpit scan as directed by AOM1 (Aircraft Operating Manual); me and the Captain checked the circuit breakers were in closed or out and collared; after takeoff we had a LG/LEVER DISAGREE we [requested priority handling] and followed the procedures back to ZZZ. I meet the maintenance guys at the bridge and I heard from them taking to the Flight Attendant that they were working on the same problem we had (landing gear not retracting).I understand that the reason behind the LG/LEVEL DISAGREE was a circuit breaker was pulled out and collared based of AOM1 when I checked the circuit breaker in the cockpit safety scan I ensures that all breakers are IN (closed) or OUT(collared). I will take my time to check each collared circuit breaker before flying the aircraft.




Synopsis: EMB-135 First Officer reported overlooking a circuit breaker that was pulled and collared by Maintenance and caused an Air Turnback when the landing gear would not retract.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: B737 aircraft was docked in ZZZ in Bay-X at approximately XA:30pm. At XB:15pm the mechanics started working on the aircraft. The normal procedure is to do all the Hydraulic Checks first; although I am not aware if this is policy anywhere. On this night; the Hydraulic Checks were started in accordance with the General Maintenance Manual (GMM) and there was no one or equipment around the aircraft. Within 45 minutes there were eight ladders and three scissor lifts under the aircraft and the Checks had to stop on four occasions: Once; as an individual climbed onto the jackscrew compartment as the Rudder Checks were being accomplished. Once; as a ladder was moved under a flap canoe. Once as a Mechanic rolled his toolbox under a flap and once as an individual tried working in the Leading edges as the Flap Checks were being accomplished. I am unclear if this is acceptable or unacceptable procedure or not. Even following the GMM procedure for clearing flight controls prior to moving them; there is just too much happening at once and too quickly for one or sometimes even two ground personnel to clear the area. There is just too much at risk with aircraft damage or personnel injury and puts too much responsibility on the one individual giving the clearance. Several of the Checks are done with a BITE Check (i.e. uncommanded Flap Check) and once the BITE Check has started there is not a way to exit it to stop the test if someone or something moves in the way. Recommend having Lead [Mechanics] coordinate jobs and job cards; according to a sequence. NO one is to start any work until all the Hydraulic Checks are complete and tagged out.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) describes his efforts to accomplish Hydraulic Checks in a chaotic work environment at a company maintenance hangar. Concerns also raised about the lack of Job Card coordination for sequencing maintenance work and the potential for personnel injury.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During our preflight check we discovered that when the Captain or First Officer mask was tested the crew oxygen pressure went to zero. The crew oxygen bottle had been replaced the night before.  Maintenance was called and the crew oxygen valve was discovered to be not fully open. Maintenance opened the valve fully; safety wired it; and signed it off in the logbook.


Second narrative: [Report contains no additional information].


Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain and First Officer discovered their oxygen mask pressures at 0 PSI during the preflight mask test and maintenance discovered the oxygen bottle valve not fully open after the bottle had been replaced the previous night.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I observed a drone while on final for Runway 4R; about 3 NM out of BOS at 1;200 ft. The previous aircraft (company) also reported that an unknown object was flying in the area. I saw a silver drone flying at a decent speed around Runway 4R's final approach path. I continued the approach and did not have to maneuver to avoid the drone because it was visible and at a reasonable distance. The unauthorized drone was flying within the inner shelf of the Boston Class B airspace. Suggest creating more awareness of the restrictions on UAS operation around busy Class Bravo airspace.




Synopsis: Captain reported sighting a drone while on final approach to BOS airport.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SDF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were instructed to exit Runway 35R at Taxiway D5 instead of Taxiway D4. We were instructed to taxi via D5 to P Taxiway. The Taxiway D5 was clear of snow at the runway turn off; but was obscured with 3-5 inches of snow at the intersection of D5 and D taxiway. Taxiway P was completely obscured with snow and Taxiway D had been plowed and was contaminated with a thin layer of ice and snow. Taxiway D5 makes a 30-45 left turn at the intersection of D5 and D taxiway; and then continues for approximately 60 feet until it intersects with Taxiway P. We mistakenly turned right onto Delta Taxiway off of Taxiway D5 because it had been plowed and the taxiway lines were visible and could be followed. Had we taxied as instructed; we would have had to taxi through 3-5 inches of unplowed snow with no visible cues as to where the taxi lines were or if we were on the concrete taxiway or not. We took the safest course of action and in doing so; failed to follow the Controller's taxi instructions. The entire airport was a sea of white with blue lights and poor airfield markings due the heavy snow that had fallen. The Ground Controllers were truly unaware of the field conditions around the airport and were instructing other aircraft to follow hazardous taxi routes. This was apparent as other Pilots were refusing the obscured taxi routings as well.


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


Synopsis: Air crew was not able to see cleared taxiway exit point off of runway during landing rollout due to snow conditions.