elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flight Crew Harness
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had been having troubles with my shoulder harness. My First Officer showed me mine was installed differently. I called maintenance to tell them mine was installed backwards. [Maintenance Control] requested I specifically state 'CA shoulder harness hanging' rather than 'CA shoulder harness installed backwards. I left the aircraft while maintenance fixed it. When I got back; maintenance had written 'CA shoulder harness operates normally no defects noted ops check good OK for service.' I felt this was not indicative of what maintenance had accomplished- which was remove and reinstall correctly. I called [Maintenance Control] and asked if the action taken needed to reflect the actual maintenance performed; because this made it appear as if they did nothing and I'm an idiot writing up working equipment. He asked if it worked and was signed off on. I told him yes. He said good; that's all he cares about. He was very upset I asked for the action taken to be indicative of the actual work performed. Writing up the discrepancy the way maintenance requested; which was not completely indicative of the situation. Log the actual work performed.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR flight crew reported discovering seat harness inoperative during pre-flight.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll past V1; got the right engine high stage bleed light and EICAS message. Followed QRH to turn the RH bleed OFF. There was still bleed pressure from the right engine with the SW OFF. Decided to return and contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control. Maintenance did not have a copy of the 757 QRH. Made a smooth overweight landing (218.8 LBS.) Found out from Maintenance that the RH engine had been replaced the night before. Apparently; no high power engine run done after the engine change. How can that be possible?




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports a right engine high stage light after V1. The right-hand bleed valve is turned off in compliance with the QRH; but some bleed pressure remains and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the ZZZZZ RNAV arrival landing [Runway] XXR in ZZZ; either just prior to ZZZZZ1; or just after; level at 6;000 feet.  We heard the Controller talking to another aircraft; Aircraft Y also at 6;000 feet.  That aircraft was issued a descent; but did not comply.  A few moments later the Controller asked if they had us in sight; and told Aircraft Y to descend immediately; and if they did not see us; to also turn immediately.  This is about the time we received the TA; and saw them ahead of us and at our altitude; on TCAS; then we received the RA; I executed the TCAS escape maneuver; TCAS issued a very steep climb; close to 6;000 FT/min.  The aircraft passed beneath us at 150-200 feet. I would call this one a near miss.I'm not certain whether the Controller lost situational awareness with this GA aircraft; or whether the pilot of that aircraft was not properly following instruction; or possibly both.  We were at our last assigned altitude; on the arrival in level flight.The Controller appeared to be working two frequencies; and seemed task saturated.  Again; I'm not sure whether the Controller lost sight of the situation; or whether this extreme RA was due to the GA pilot not following Controller instructions.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a near miss during approach with GA traffic.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I went to the lavatory. While there; I removed my mask and placed it in my pocket. After using the lavatory and exiting; I decided to do a water service. I walked 3/4 of the cabin when I realized that I was not wearing my mask. I remained calm in the aisle and quickly finished the service. Once in the galley; I put my mask back on.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported forgetting to put a mask back on prior to doing a water service.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm; Icing
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to gate departure; maintenance informed me we had an inoperative left main tank fuel quantity indicator. I had not noticed this MEL item when doing preflight paperwork earlier; as weather was the main concern at the time; and we were rushed to get to the outbound aircraft due to being late inbound and having to clear customs.We departed soon after checking the MEL and speaking with dispatch via phone. Our dispatcher assured us we could comply with the MEL requirement to remain within 50 NM of land on our filed route. We were certainly legal; but in retrospect I wouldn't have taken the aircraft on this route knowing the full extent of the issue.After takeoff; we took extended vectors and deviations due to weather. We were also unable to climb due to other traffic deviating in our area. We had no way of knowing where we were in relation to a shoreline when we are in IMC and deviating around thunderstorms. I'm not sure if we remained within 50 NM of shore; thus I am filing this ASAP.Do not dispatch an aircraft with an inoperative main tank fuel quantity indication on an overwater route and expect that the crew can comply with the 50 NM requirement while maintaining clearance from thunderstorms. This aircraft routing should have been switched to an over land domestic operation.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported he is unsure if he complied with MEL restrictions of remaining within 50 NM of land when he was dispatched with an inoperative main fuel tank gauge.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Air Carrier X checked on my frequency and I verified who he was. I told my Supervisor there might be an ERAM issue and then verified and coordinated with OMA Approach if they had shown the flight departed in there system and if they had RADAR contact. They told me there was a glitch with something; but that they didn't think it affected the hand off to me. Fix ERAM.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an uncertain hand off event indicating that ERAM anomalies were at the root of the problem.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
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 Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff during landing gear retraction we got an EICAS Caution GEAR DISAGREE and GEAR DOOR. The Main Gear showed UP indication but the Nose Gear indicated in transit (white crosshatch indication). There was loud buffeting noise that also indicated probably Nose Gear in transit. We advised ATC of the malfunction and requested holding at 10000 ft. They advised that traffic was light and that they would provide vectors instead of holding. We followed FOM CRM technique for emergency situations. The First Officer was Pilot Flying and handled routine ATC communications. I as Captain handled checklists and all other communication with Flight Attendants; passengers; Dispatch and Maintenance. I made a PA announcement to explain the noise and contacted the Purser via interphone to advise her we were working checklists and would most likely be returning. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance using SATCOM. I described the malfunction and requested if Maintenance had any other information about this type of gear malfunction. I advised them per GEAR DISAGREE checklist the landing gear would be extended using the alternate gear extension. The GEAR DISAGREE checklist was completed. The First Officer and I discussed landing performance and discussed fuel dumping versus overweight landing. We determined that our landing weight would be 447;000 lbs. which would be 2000 lbs. overweight. Landing performance data was evaluated and was well within safe parameters.Dispatch was advised of return and overweight landing. I advised ATC since this was a non-normal situation and our workload was increased. All checklists were completed and passengers; Flight Attendants were notified of return to [departure airport]. I advised the Purser that a normal landing was planned with taxi to gate. We landed  and exited at a taxiway so that ARFF could inspect [the] nose gear area. They advised [that the] area looked normal. I advised them no further assistance was required. We taxied to [the] gate and parked.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported they had an unsafe gear indication; returned to the airport and performed an overweight landing.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The event started after center changed our arrival into CLE from the TRYBE3 to the ROLLN2. We did not have any issues loading and joining the new arrival. During our descent; there was frequent changes in ATC instructions; including headings off of the arrival; rejoining of the arrival; descend via the arrival; as well as being told to stop our descent earlier than originally planned. Eventually; we were left on a heading off of the arrival; when it sounded like a new Air Traffic Controller took over. At this point ATC cleared us for the approach; despite us still on a heading from the ILS course for 6L. When we asked for clarification the Controller seemed surprised that we were not on an arrival and told us to hold our heading. The Controller then cleared us direct to DEVYL; which the First Officer read back and the Controller did not correct. After flying towards DEVYL; the Controller told us to cross BETLL and cleared us for the approach. We again asked for clarification and he told us that he initially cleared us direct BETLL; not DEVYL; despite the lack of correction. At this point; approach told us to descend to 2;600 feet and report the field in sight; even though we were still in IMC. We told approach that we did not have the field and we were given a climb and vector to rejoin the ILS. The flight continued to a landing without any further issues.The cause of this event is due to the lack of correction on read back; combined with fixes that could be pronounced in different ways. The crew misheard the Controller and I assume that the Controller also misheard our read back due to the lack of correction.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing a track heading deviation while on the ROLLN2 arrival to CLT. Captain stated similar sounding fix names BETYL and DEVYL contributed to the event.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: 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: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the pilot monitoring and Check Airman for the BRAVS RNAV departure from Atlanta.  We were cleared to line up and wait on Runway 27R.  Our takeoff clearance was changed to:  At the middle marker; turn to heading 250 degrees and climb to 10;000 feet.  I immediately started looking for an indication of the marker beacon on this Airbus 319 to no avail.  We knew we had gone too far when tower asked us what our heading was and if we were receiving the marker beacon.  We immediately turned to 250 degrees and we got handed off to departure control.  As far as we could tell; there was no other aircraft near us vertically or horizontally.I should know how to identify the middle marker first and foremost.  Upon reflection; I believe the clearance is a pretty good set up because tower gave us no time to think through a takeoff clearance that changed from our clearance...and he gave it to us on the cleared for takeoff verbiage.  Next time I will deny the takeoff clearance until I can be sure to follow it.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a track deviation on takeoff from ATL when; just prior to takeoff; they received a last minute change to their clearance that involved a turn at the middle marker. Reporter indicated he could not locate the middle marker.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
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: We were cleared for visual approach for 27R and instructed to contact tower at the marker. Then before switching to the tower; we heard approach control (what we thought was for our flight) offer to switch over to land on 27L. I replied with 'we would appreciate that' but without our call sign. Then; the flying pilot began the side step maneuver to 27L. I (the pilot monitoring) asked approach control for tower frequency (thinking that we need the tower frequency for 27L (not 27R) the approach controller stated that we should have intercepted 27R... Then gave us a heading 360; then 040 and climb to 4000. The approach controller then gave vectors for 27R. Landing was made without incident.Both I and my first officer thought we heard the offer from approach control for 27L which (I learned from the approach control supervisor - via telephone conversation) was intended for another aircraft. Plus I did not use my call sigh on the read back. And the controller did not ask for our call sign on read back. For me to be more careful listening to call signs. Always use call signs on read backs - even on those quick response-type ATC communications.


Second narrative: On approach to ORD 27R both Captain and I believed ATC offered 27L. Began sidestep; ATC said 'keep doing what you are doing' Approach informed us we were lining up with wrong runway; turned us to 360 heading to bring us back around to 27R. Misunderstanding the offer was for another aircraft. ATC not clarifying call signs. In future; triple check sidestep offers and clearances.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew and one of the C90 Controllers involved describe a misunderstanding between the crew and C90 resulting in vectors for a second approach. After initially being cleared for the visual to Runway 27R the EMB145 crew accepts a clearance meant for another aircraft to land Runway 27L and moves over.
Date: 201511
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Takeoff / Launch; Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Lead Flight Attendant was smoking an E-cigarette during flight. The e cigarette was being smoked during pushback and taxi in the first class galley. The E-cigarette was being smoked during takeoff on the jumpseat. I addressed the rest of the crew about how to handle the situation. The crew responded with 'don't do anything. He has been doing this for years; but usually smokes in the lavatory. Plus you don't want to get in the middle of it.' After the beverage service; the lead sat in his assigned jumpseat and continued to smoke the e cigarette as first class passengers passed by to use the lavatory. I informed the Captain of the situation with the Lead smoking in flight. The Captain addressed the Lead and the Lead denied even having an E-cigarette.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that the Lead Flight Attendant was smoking an E-cigarette throughout the flight. The Captain addressed the issue with the Lead Flight Attendant; but the Flight Attendant denied having smoked.