elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
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 / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I expected a marginal extra fuel burn when I (together with the concurrence of my dispatcher) increased the Cost index to 200 from 20 in order to make up some lost time. After two hours enroute on a nearly fourteen hour flight; it became very clear that the overburn was far more than expected. In the next four hours we flew the flight plan exactly as published (cost index; altitude and airspeed) only to find that the overburn continued to be quite large. Each segment of the flight plan produced an additional five hundred pounds of overburn. By the time we were roughly 6 hours into the flight; we were nearly five thousand pounds down on the fuel score. We accomplished the fuel leak procedures (no fuel leak noted) and viewed the output of the engines with our onboard camera (no unusual visuals noted). We elected to make a technical stop in ZZZZ for fuel and had ZZZZ maintenance do all applicable checks. Nothing found. We continued to ZZZZ1 uneventfully.After investigation by flight management; it was discovered that the drag factor the flight planning software used was in error. It was set to 0.4% as opposed to 2.7%


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


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported a greater than planned fuel burn on an international flight resulting in a diversion. Further investigation revealed the drag factor in the flight planning software was incorrect.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RKSI.TRACON, FO
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON RKSI
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for the BULS1P STAR. This STAR was not available in the FMC. We advised Approach Control that we were unable BULS1P STAR. We were then given 'direct to PULUN for the ILS Runway 33R.' As we approached PULUN we were cleared 'after PULUN cleared to descend for the ILS Runway 33R.' The approach and landing were uneventful.Safety concerns for this flight was that the database (expired the next day) used during this flight did not contain the BULS1P STAR and the line selected ILS Runway 33R was not current. The ILS Runway 33R displayed by the FMC showed: 108.9/332 degrees with fixes of RIVER-FF33R-RW33R and the MAP instructions were also modestly different. As we compared the current approach chart with the FMC display (from the line selected ILS Runway 33R); we noticed the previously mentioned discrepancies. The FMC line selected approach was not current.




Synopsis: A B747-400 flight crew which departed only hours before the FMS database switchover time arrived at their destination to find the STAR assigned by ATC was not in their FMS database and their assigned ILS was marginally different in course details and the Missed Approach Procedure.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in level cruise flight in my Pilatus PC-12. The flight conditions were VMC at FL250. I was currently in contact with Seattle Center during this time period. I was direct to the Navaid (MBW) VOR with a continuation to [the destination]. During The flight there was a long span of time in which I was hearing chatter with ATC but no direct contact with my aircraft. Seattle Center handed me off to Salt Lake Center but was not able to contact me directly. Salt Lake Center stated that I had flown for at least 30 minutes without contact. ATC contacted another aircraft in which to contact me. This was how I had found out that they were trying to reach me. During the flight I was noticing other aircraft were losing contact with ATC as well. A Citation was trying to contact Seattle center as well as a Commercial flight at the time. I was given a phone number to contact Salt Lake Center to discuss what had happened. They told me that due to the excessive time span of loss of contact that there was a report to be filed against me. I felt that I was not responsible due to the lack of communication between my aircraft and center. I was trying to be aware of my communications with ATC during this time. ATC asked if I were monitoring Guard on 121.5 at this time I was not.




Synopsis: PC12 Captain at FL250 reported lost communications with ATC. Once communications were reestablished the reporter was advised that communications were lost for over 30 minutes.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on an IFR flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; we were sent 'direct ZZZZZ' to begin the RNAV Approach into ZZZ1. About a mile from ZZZZZ1; we were advised by ATC of VFR traffic that seemed to be on the other feeder route for the approach. After making visual contact with the pointed out traffic; we announced 'traffic in sight' and proceeded with the approach. The traffic in question was a Cirrus SR22 doing 152 knots; so we slowed down to our approach speed of 90 knots and expected them to continue the approach; at which point we would either continue behind or request delay vectors. The Cirrus unexpectedly turned outbound towards us and we had to take evasive maneuvers. The situation resolved with both parties taking evasive action in the form of a right turn; as stated by the FAA's right-of-way rules




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an NMAC when an aircraft they were following on an approach unexpectedly reversed course towards them.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was the pilot flying. We were at our cruising altitude when ATC gave us direct Charlottesville. I selected the fix on the FMS and confirmed with the captain and he agreed. Shortly after ATC asked if we were direct Charleston. The captain replied; negative; we are direct Charlottesville. ATC said that he wanted us 10 degrees right and to proceed direct Charleston VOR which was HVQ.  ATC did not give us the phonetic ID on initial assignment.This controller was hard to understand. We proceeded direct HVQ (Charleston); got a frequency change and flew on uneventfully to Charlottesville.Charlottesville and Charleston sound very similar on the radio. We did not verified with ATC whether he wanted us direct to the airport or the VOR.When there are similar sounding fixes including airports that could be confused with each other; ATC should state the fix using the phonetic alphabet. Also; we as a crew should always verify fixes with ATC no matter how many times we have flown the same routes. Complacency played a part in this event because at the end we are the ones flying the airplane and responsible for its lateral and vertical paths of it.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer Pilot reported confusion between two similar sounding fixes (airport Charlottesville and VOR Charleston).
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Date; my student and I departed ZZZ1 in Aircraft X at approximately XA40 local time. While maneuvering over the ZZZ practice area at 4;000 feet MSL; our engine quit. We began turning towards my chosen landing site on [an] island as I was troubleshooting. I had my student run the 'Power loss in flight' checklist followed by the 'If no restart & time permits' checklist.We were unable to restart the engine so I continued setting up for a forced landing. During the rollout; we contacted a dirt berm which allowed us to decelerate and come to a complete stop in approximately 200 feet. We landed at approximately XB20 local time. Both my student and I sustained no injuries.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported engine failure during training and performed an off airport landing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Exiting SFO Runway 28L on Taxiway 'T' there are no taxiway edge lights on the left side. Taxiways D and K are very close; it would be helpful to have T edge lights to identify it as early as possible.




Synopsis: An A320 series Captain noted that exiting SFO Runway 28L; Taxiway T left edge lights are inoperable which makes early identification of that taxiway difficult.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing LAX; checked in with SoCal on frequency 124.3. Climbing via the DOTSS 2 departure except maintain 5;000 [feet]. As with virtually every departure off LAX; we were cleared 'climb and maintain 17;000.' SoCal never issues 'climb via'. Switched to next frequency 119.95 and was issued 'Climb via; except maintain 19;000.' As we were heavy; were not given any prior restrictions on speed or altitude and shortcuts on the departure; we said 'unable climb via' as there was an above altitude of 15;000 [feet] at DOTSS intersection ahead. The reissuing of a via clearance after being unrestricted is not practical if ATC needs the restrictions. Upon stating 'unable climb via' to ATC; [ATC] got very snappy with us and said: 'The last Controller was to give 'climb via'.' We advised they never do and didn't this time either. Next ATC command was: 'Slow to 250 kts or you will hit an aircraft at 14;000'.' We complied with the 250 kts; didn't hear anything further and didn't hit any airplanes.SoCal always gives climb and maintain off LAX. If LA Center on next frequency wants or needs a 'climb via' then some communication between ATC facilities needs to happen ahead of time. No need to blame pilots for following ATC instructions.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported not accepting a 'climb via' clearance while on the LAX DOTTS 2 SID due to lack of communications between controllers. The event led to non-standard communication between the crew and the Controller.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On final to RWY 27 at KIAH; approximately 6 mile final at approximately 1500 AGL; right side was illuminated from ground; lasted approximately 5 seconds; reported to ATC. First Officer said he felt OK upon arrival at gate; but felt like he had something in one eye.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the First Officer was affected by a laser light on final to Runway 27 at KIAH.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When we were ready for pushback; the Ground Crew was not answering our calls.  The cabin door was closed and the jetway was back.  I had a feeling the wireless headset was not working as it should.  At one point; I could hear the beeping in the headset that you sometimes get when the headset is plugged in but there is no one on the other end.  When the beeping went away I still could not hear the Ramper.  Then I heard him disconnect the headset and I saw him walk away with it.   He retrieved a headset with a wire on it and plugged it in.  It worked and I talked with him.  But; he said the wire was too short and he could not wear it and drive the tug at the same time.  So; he asked if we could just use hand signals for the pushback.  I verified that the doors were all closed; the walk around was completed; and that the airplane number was correct.  Then I okayed the pushback with hand signals.   After the push back was complete and brakes were set; I saw the two Rampers driving away.  I gave them the hold signal and luckily the Driver saw me and stopped.  I pointed to my nose and signaled him to show me the bypass pin.  I could see that he asked the guy sitting next to him if he had remembered to remove the pin.  The guy smiled and shook his head yes.  Then they both looked at me and shook their heads yes.  I still had not seen the pin or its flag.  So I shook my head no and again pointed to my nose and continued to hold my other hand up with the stop signal.  Then I saw the Driver ask the other Ramper to show me the pin.  Then he began to look for it and at once they both realized that it was still installed.  So he ran up to the plane; removed the pin; and showed it to me.  The distraction of not following procedure could have caused the pin to go unnoticed.




Synopsis: During a pushback using hand signals; a B737 Captain persisted in requiring a visual check of the nose bypass pin which had; in fact; been left in.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine #2 failed; performed rapid roll back after sudden shudder/vibration. Captain and I performed memory item for 'ENG FAILURE/FLAMEOUT/SHUTDOWN' sec 72.3 of the MD80 QRH. Noticed EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) off scale high (above 800 degrees C). EGT started to cool rapidly upon executing 'FUEL LEVER OFF' portion of checklist. Completed checklist and secured #2 engine. Proceeded to destination and accomplished Single Engine Approach/Landing Checklist. Touchdown weight was approx 140;100# at 3-400 fpm.Upon inspection found Turbine section completely destroyed/missing. With a complete turbine failure/destruction such as was our case; we received residual fuel flow; N1; N2; and oil pressure. EGT was off scale high 800+ degrees C. I'm unsure as to preventative measures on our part; however; this was sort of an anomaly when reading the QRH. Perhaps include a note about EGT in this section as well.




Synopsis: MD-80 First Officer reported that while in cruise; the #2 engine failed. After landing; they found #2 engine turbine completely destroyed.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Due to staffing and a recent directive; I was working ZZZ Radar while providing watch supervision and working Clearance Delivery as well. The phone rang which required me to walk across the room turning my back on the radar position I was responsible for. I answered the phone and it was POCC; [Pacific Operations Control Center] calling to coordinate planned maintenance activity for a future date. While retrieving the binder to write down the information; an aircraft called with a question. I was forced to ask the pilot to repeat the call; and the POCC person continued talking. I had to ask the pilot to repeat a second time. This made me very uncomfortable to be facing away from my radar position to answer a phone while working position. Staffing priority should reflect First person on duty works one sector with all functions combined. Second person assumes OSCIC and Flight Data/Clearance Delivery. Third person opens second operational sector.




Synopsis: TRACON Front Line Manager reported staffing shortage caused them to miss an aircraft call while turned away from scope to answer a phone call.