elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCEL.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SCEL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We taxied out on a clearance to use Charlie and Alpha to 17L. As we approached the Charlie to Alpha Y we saw a sign near where the H is on the chart to the left of the Y. It said to go the left to join Alpha to 17L. As I stated to the Ground controller told us to turn right and continue on Charlie to the right and then join Alpha. I immediately complied and we stayed on the hard surface.My FO and I agreed that we had both been snowed by the sign which had indicated to turn left towards Kilo instead of continuing on Charlie to Alpha. Bad signage was at the heart of the problem. Afterwards we taxied uneventfully to 17L.I hope that other unsuspecting pilots that have been caught in the same trap will cause SCEL ground ops to replace the signs leading to Alpha and Kilo. Review of the signage used by SCEL Ground Ops with a clearer depiction of taxiway A's origin northbound.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported they had difficulty with taxiway signage at SCEL airport.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: FILED ROUTE****KIAH LOA8 FUZ J58... CLIMB VIA SID CTC RAMP CONTROL WHEN READY TO PUSH. We were given the clearance; 'On departure turn right to 340; cleared for takeoff Runway 09.' The initial climb altitude was 4;000 feet. First Officer made the takeoff normally and after gear retraction initiated the turn to the right. I delayed pulling the heading knob until passing through 180 because it would have commanded a left turn (the shorter direction to 340). We noticed an amber traffic advisory about 45 off to the right and in front of us; and monitored it. Approximately 1;500 feet the TCAS changed to Resolution advisory (RA) with the command REDUCE CLIMB. I said; 'You need to descend;' and First Officer reduced the climb to 0 VSI as per the RA indication on the VSI. About that time the Tower Controller told us to roll out. I replied; 'We are responding to an RA; rolling out on 210.' The traffic passed nearly over us perhaps within 500 feet; I'm not sure. We were told to continue the turn to 350; and then told to stop the turn at 270. Then we were told to continue the turn to 360 and climb to 16;000 feet.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew departing Runway 9 at IAH with instructions to turn right to heading 340 after takeoff which results in a TCAS RA and a NMAC with an aircraft turning left off one of the south runways.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Busbar
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through 12;000 FT both AC tie bus relays tripped open causing numerous level 1 alerts and continuous stick shaker activation. This activated the emergency power - powering only the AC ground service bus off the ships batteries. I notified ATC and requested to stop the climb so we could analyze and treat the emergency. We performed the checklist for AC GS BUS OFF. This calls for a landing at the nearest suitable airport. Aircraft weight was 114;000 LBS - I requested to return to our departure airport and a short hold to reduce the landing weight below 110;000 LBS. The air return; landing; and gate return were uneventful. Maintenance met us at the gate. I made the appropriate log entries - aircraft weight at landing was approximately 108;000 LBS.




Synopsis: A B717 returned to their departure airport when both bus tie relays opened during their climb.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While level at 6000' on the arrival; we received a new frequency on 121.5 and a simultaneous jolt of wake turbulence. It wasn't clear to me which radio the call came from or even if it was for us. The other Pilot (Pilot Flying) asked for a repeat on 121.5 and we eventually called Approach on the new frequency. In the meantime; we were trying to locate the source of the wake encounter. Eventually; we reviewed our COMM panels and found the hundredths digit had been inadvertently moved on our previous frequency.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported losing contact with ATC when they incorrectly entered a new frequency. Situation was complicated by a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushing off gate and starting 1 engine; we received an Elevator Servo Fault ECAM message. We went through all QRH procedures to resolve the problem to no avail. After calling ZZZ Operations to coordinate a return to the gate; we were informed that we were not allowed to return to the gate for a maintenance problem without Maintenance Control authorization. This seems to be in conflict with 14 CFR 121.533; 14 CFR 121.535 regarding Captain's Pilot in Command authority; as well as the MEL preamble which states that Maintenance Control's role is that of technical consultation (Not Command and Control). In any event; we eventually reached Maintenance Control via personal cellphone; and; eventually; Maintenance Control concurred that we should return to the gate. We returned to the gate; maintenance personnel troubleshot the problem to no avail; and the aircraft was taken out of service. My concern is that; in this scenario; the flight crew was forced to go through a Maintenance Control process that has 3 possible outcomes. First; Maintenance Control directs some off book procedure over the phone that 'fixes' the problem. Second; Maintenance Control directs us to flight crew placard the malfunction (which is not allowed by the MEL in any event). Neither one of those outcomes are acceptable with a primary flight control malfunction. The last possible outcome; and the only realistic outcome; is to return the aircraft to the gate; which we were frustrated from doing by this Maintenance Control permission regimen. I am concerned we are being pushed into possibly unsafe operation as our judgment is automatically questioned by a corporate policy that directly conflicts with Federal law.[Reporter stated the need for a revision of] company policy regarding maintenance troubleshooting.We [flight crews] need clearer understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Maintenance Control versus the PIC.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported ground gate return policy violates FARs in regards to Captain's Pilot in Command authority.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CCB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CCB
ATC / advisory: UNICOM CCB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying Aircraft X which is not equipped with either an electrical system nor radio; I conducted a run-up and 360-degree turn in the hammerhead of Runway 24 at Cable Airport. I did not observe any traffic in the pattern and elected to take off. I did not observe any traffic entering the pattern via the standard crosswind or midfield local entry procedures. Upon reaching the downwind abeam point; I scanned final and did not observe any traffic and began my base turn. After rolling out on final; I ended up wingtip to wingtip within a 1/2-mile of Aircraft Y. I must not have been able to see the aircraft due to ground clutter. Aircraft Y initiated a go-around and I continued to lend to prevent further conflict.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC event on the final approach to CCB non-towered airport.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JAC.Airport, WY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D JAC
ATC / advisory: Tower JAC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were cleared for taxi to Runway 1. We exited the ramp at Taxiway D and proceeded southbound on Taxiway A. In order to maximize available runway; we followed the second (southernmost) curved taxiway center line onto Taxiway A1; toward the active runway. We observed the enhanced taxiway center line markings; however as the Taxiway A transitioned to Taxiway A1 the hold-short line was completely obscured by packed snow.We stopped the aircraft approximately 60 feet past what we estimate to be the location of the hold-short line and immediately notified the Tower of our error. We were instructed to perform a 180 back to Taxiway A. The incursion did not present any immediate conflict to other aircraft. Another aircraft was simultaneously taxiing on the active runway for the north de-icing pad. The nearest arriving aircraft was greater than 10 miles away and had not yet been cleared to land.Upon further analysis of the error; we (the crew) determined that the short taxi certainly contributed to the confusion. The Holding Position sign for RWY 1-19 is situated on the northern edge of Taxiway A1 and angled to the northeast; in a manner that makes it very easy to miss when entering Taxiway A from Taxiway D. By the time the aircraft is established on Taxiway A; that sign is already abeam the aircraft. From the perspective of the pilot flying from the left seat; that sign is not visible in this situation. But the most significant factor in our misstep today was the nearly complete obscuration of the hold short line at the intersection of taxiways A and A1.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a runway incursion at JAC airport and cited snow obscuring the hold short line and the position of the Holding Position sign contributed to the event.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other pushback
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower did not alert pilot that a 787 was on taxiway prior to giving pushback the 'clear to push' command. Near ground miss with a plane on the taxiway going at least 30mph.




Synopsis: Ground Crew reported a near strike with a B787 during pushback due to a communication breakdown with ATC.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During FMS Visual to Runway XXR and after I disconnected the autopilot; I noticed that I was low on the approach but before I corrected; ATC issued us a low altitude alert. I corrected and maintained a stable approach to the landing.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported descending below the glideslope on short final and received a Low Altitude Alert from the Tower.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp FLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While taxiing at FLL; there is a construction fence on the east side of the ramp. Along this fence there are many vehicles; bag carts; and other equipment parked. There are no lines to indicate that we have wing clearance from these items. There was also an aircraft parked at [our intended gate]. I stopped the aircraft and called Ops to tell Ramp we needed Wing Walkers. They told us the Safety Zone was clear.I called Ops again to explain we needed Wing Walkers. Then one of the guys got out of the truck and stood as a Wing Walker for my left side and a Ramp Agent came out to the right wing. We then proceeded to taxi into the gate. Another Pilot heard us talking about this and said they came in last night and agreed with our assessment of the situation. We did not have an incident; but I'm afraid that someone might not be as persistent as me and taxi into this gate without Wing Walkers. There should not be any equipment parked along the fence in this area or lines need to be painted to indicate wing clearance!




Synopsis: Captain of B737 reported the lack of visual cues needed to safely park the aircraft in the presence of close proximity ground equipment and material.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: VFR departure normal. Right turn at shoreline. I departed with flight following but was informed ATC would be too busy along my route and was told to squawk VFR. Limited to the Class Bravo shelf; I set my altitude select to 4500 ft. and engaged the autopilot in the climb. Monitoring the climb; I saw the plane continue the climb past 4500 ft. and where I expected it to settle back to 4500 ft.; instead go through 4600 ft. upon which I disengaged the auto pilot and pushed on the yoke. However; the trim up elevator wouldn't relax; I couldn't turn the trim wheel and all I could do was push hard against the yoke as I busted Bravo and the plane climbed at least another 400 ft. with the trim stuck. I pulled the circuit breaker but it still wouldn't release and I manually pushed the yoke hard to get the plane below the bravo. I cycled the breaker and the switch and finally got the trim under control. I hand flew at 4500 ft. until passing the shelf and continued on my flight climbing to 8500 ft. with no difficulties. Later; I determined that I have a faulty autopilot altitude switch. Getting it fixed tomorrow. In retrospect; I feel I handled the problem calmly but expeditiously.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot reported overshooting altitude during climb due to autopilot runaway.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCO
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying at cruise altitude at night; the Pilots noticed that the standby attitude gyro was showing 15 degrees left wing down; while the two primary attitude displays were showing 'wings level.'  As the flight proceeded; the standby attitude gyro precession in pitch (20 degrees nose up and down) and precession in roll (15 degrees left and right). From the first time the Pilots noticed the standby attitude gyro behaving abnormally until we arrived at the gate (approximately 45 minutes); the 'orange Gyro Failure flag' never appeared to warn the Pilots of the failure.  The Captain/Maintenance made appropriate logbook entries.  Maintenance removed and replaced the standby attitude gyro; and the next flight was conducted without any problems with the standby attitude gyro.  Tonight we were able to reference the two primary attitude displays and outside ground cues in order to maintain the proper aircraft attitude with ease.  However; in the unlikely event the two primary attitude references failed; AND the standby attitude gyro failed without the proper 'orange Gyro Failure flag(s);' the Pilots would not know for certain which attitude references were providing valid information and which ones were not providing valid information.  Is the B-737-700 standby attitude gyro designed to display an 'orange Gyro Failure flag' when gyro fails? If not; it would certainly be of great assistance during night; IMC flight with multiple attitude display failures.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain experiences a standby attitude indicator failure in cruise without displaying any failure flags.