elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BDL.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BDL
ATC / advisory: TRACON BDL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our approach we got a momentary GPWS warning when leveling off at ATC cleared altitude of 3;000 [feet]. The captain disconnected the autopilot and was getting ready to perform the escape maneuver when the warning stopped. We were able to see the terrain and the airport and [we were] above the published approach altitude so we determined it was safe to continue approach.


Second narrative: Cleared direct to PENNA Intersection on the ILS to Runway 06 with a descent clearance to 3;000 feet. At approximately 3;300 feet with autopilot engaged and in ALT; we received a single 'Terrain' warning. I disengaged the autopilot and began the escape maneuver with no other warning or commands. We had the airport in sight and were in VFR conditions; but it was at night. We never received a 'Terrain; Terrain' warning or any other commands; just the single aural Terrain command. We crossed PENNA at 3;300 [feet] with a descent to 2;400 [feet] at the JANID Intersection where we captured the glide slope and continued to a normal approach and landing.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a GPWS warning while executing a visual approach on autopilot. Crew disengaged autopilot and executed the approach manually.
Date: 201602
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is a Fatigue report filed because I called Fatigue on day three of a three day trip and did not complete the last two legs.I'll mention the first night [Day 0] at the [hotel] (even though it sometimes appears that really not much weight is given to accumulating sleep deficits) only because the first night of this trip I was already set back in my sleep. We arrived late on Friday night at the [hotel] and I was assigned a midlevel room on the east side of the building.  I was awake until about XA:30 as the sounds of people and their motorcycles and cars were quite loud from the street as the bars closed and let out.  I slept maybe five hours this first night; but was still fit for duty on day two.On the second night [Day 1] of this trip; we were at [different] Hotel. It pains me to write anything derogatory about this hotel because it is one of the finest in our system.  On Saturday night; however; the annual Winter Ball was at the hotel - and the hotel assigned us rooms in the out building; which is an older building that is not part of the main hotel property.  The receptionist said; 'I'm sorry; we don't have rooms for you here in this building tonight. You'll be across the street.' Immediately outside my door was the elevator doors; and I heard people coming and going until the wee hours of the morning. Worse; right outside my window was a frat house - complete with an outdoor terrace. There was a large frat party this night that went until XA:00; complete with young girls screaming; and the sounds of furniture being tossed out the windows; I kid you not. See the pictures. So I had elevator noise through my door and a great frat party making noise outside my window. I got to sleep at around XA:00 and woke at XE:00 for our pickup.  I was facing a 12 hours day on four hours of sleep.  Not gonna happen.  I did the first leg and called fatigued.




Synopsis: A Captain called off a trip fatigued on the third day after two nights of sleep deficit at hotels where late loud noise interfered with rest opportunities.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAB.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X departed DAB on an IFR flight plan. LAM was in the scratch pad; this leads the controllers to believe the aircraft is a LAMMA departure. The aircraft was told to proceed direct LAMMA intersection. The aircraft then asked what do I do after LAMMA. The aircraft was an ILIND departure and should have had ILD in the scratch pad area on his data tag. This is something that I have sent reports in several times over the last few years and have sent to our automation specialist several times.The aircraft penetrated F11 airspace prior to coordination in the wrong location.  This error belongs to the reporting program and DAB automation for non-action on known problems.Fix the scratch pads on departures to show the correct departure gate!




Synopsis: DAB Controller reports of an automation problem with the wrong scratch pad information showing up in aircraft data block.  This lead to confusion for the Controller; pilot and resulted in an airspace deviation.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had received a clearance from PHL ground to taxi to hold short of rwy 27r; via taxiway kilo3. We were not told to give way to any aircraft on our way to hold short of 27r. I noticed that there was a Regional Jet taxiing on taxiway kilo; east bound towards taxiway kilo 3. I slowed and stopped to ensure there would be no conflict with the Regional Jet. I saw the Regional Jet stop just prior to the intersection of taxiway kilo 3 and kilo. I intended to ask my co pilot to confirm with phl ground that we had right of way to taxi; when I saw the Regional Jet start taxiing again. My aircraft was past taxiway Juliet; on kilo 3; holding short of taxiway kilo. The Regional Jet started turning left; in to kilo 3. I turned on my taxi/landing light and yelled 'STOP!' on the ground frequency as the Regional Jet continued his turn in to me. The Regional Jet moved to the far right of taxiway Kilo 3; far to the right of the yellow taxi line. The Regional Jet's left wingtip passed within feet of the radome on my aircraft. The incident occurred because [the other aircraft] was incredibly reckless and dangerous in the operation of his aircraft. There was no obstruction by my aircraft on taxiway kilo. He could have continued his taxi straight ahead; or after turning in to kilo 3 could have stopped and had tugs clear us apart.




Synopsis: A320 Captain taxiing at PHL reported a Regional Jet deviated from his clearance and taxied dangerously close to his aircraft.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D OPF
ATC / advisory: Tower OPF
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Reporter was pilot flying. Part 91 flight to OPF; on ILS for Runway 30 in VMC conditions. Was warned by ATC of unknown drone operating in vicinity of extended centerline of runway. We spotted drone during the descent on the ILS at approximately 1500 feet at within 100 feet of our altitude approximately 200-300 feet from our left side 10 o'clock. No evasive action was required to maintain separation. We informed ATC. Drone was definitely operating in violation of UAS regulations. Drone was dark colored and appeared to have multiple rotors on the top of the body; looked similar to a drone that would be purchased commercially for personal use.




Synopsis: Gulfstream V Captain reported a NMAC with UAV on final approach to OPF.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DIK.Airport, ND
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF DIK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While making a left hand turn exiting the terminal ramp onto taxiway A for a planned departure from runway 32 the left main gear wheels departed the taxiway pavement and subsequently became stuck in the mud/grass. We were conducting this taxi as a two-engine taxi as per the requirements of the departure notes on the 10-7L page in our Jepps. The event occurred at a very slow taxi speed. After coordinating with the station operations personnel; the passengers were deplaned from the aircraft via a ramp and escorted back into the terminal. A maintenance team was flown in. The aircraft was pulled out of the mud/grass and inspected by the maintenance team - no faults were found and the aircraft was returned to service. The biggest threats are the very narrow taxiways and the very limited pavement/concrete in the turn radius leaving the terminal ramp. This event could be prevented by widening the intersection leaving the terminal ramp (which we were told is scheduled to occur in the near future because this sort of event has occurred a couple other times in the same spot). Adding additional information the 10-7 pages of our Jepps to alert other pilots about this particular intersection could also help.




Synopsis: Regional Jet First Officer describes a taxiway excursion while attempting to turn from the ramp taxiway to Taxiway A at DIK. The aircraft becomes stuck and the flight is canceled. The site of the excursion has apparently been visited by other aircraft and is scheduled to widened.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was cleared approach at 14Y and issued NOTAMS.  When aircraft landed he advised CPC that the runway was closed.  I called the Airport Manager (City Hall) and they said there should be a NOTAM that part of the runway was closed.  I advised them it wasn't and they issued a NOTAM saying a runway was closed.  There was no runway number or what part of the runway was closed.Maybe better education for city workers who manage an airport rather than actual airport managers that run them.

Callback: FLM couldn't recall information and didn't know if anything was done from the facility side for a follow up for proper training.



Synopsis: ZMP Center FLM reports a pilot lands at an airport then advises the Controller the airport is closed.  No NOTAMS are in effect at the time for the runway closure.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During landing; aircraft experienced a propeller strike on the right engine due to pilot induced oscillations following a ballooned landing. Damage to propeller blade tips was discovered during post-flight inspection. Emphasize to pilots the importance of executing timely go-around procedures.


Second narrative: During landing; the right engine experienced a propeller strike due to pilot induced oscillations following a ballooned landing. Winds were 170/14G22. Damage to propeller blades were discovered during pilot walk-around inspection following engine shutdown. Emphasize amongst pilots the importance of a timely go-around procedure.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported a propeller strike on landing due to oscillations following a ballooned landing.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the pre-takeoff control check the Captain; who is extremely over weight; had to slide back their chair in order for me to check full travel of the controls. After checking the controls the Captain slid the chair up to the original position. The first leg was the Captain's so I figured the Captain was able to get full motion out of the controls. During the second leg back; I was unable to have full range of motion in the control while hand flying with the Captain in the seat. This is an extreme safety issue. Not only because the restricted control travel but in the event of an emergency; I would not be able utilize some emergency exits because of the Captain's extreme size. After landing I asked to be reassigned to a different trip. Scheduling informed me that there were no trips available so I asked to be removed from the flight.




Synopsis: EMB-135 First Officer reports requesting he be removed from a flight due to the Captain's overweight condition causing a restriction to the yoke in the full up elevator direction.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending on the BEREE 1 RNAV arrival into DFW; we were given an initial descent from FL350-FL240; asked to be below FL290 within 4 minutes. Shortly thereafter; told to descend via the arrival (lowest altitude 11;000 FT). Could not use managed descent due to the ATC request for the expedited descent; so I used vertical speed descent. Somewhere prior to MUZZY intersection; passing through about FL210; ATC asked if we were given a different arrival as we were already below the FL240 restriction at MUZZY. I then realized I had never switched back to managed descent from vertical speed once we were below FL290 which meant that the plane would not honor the constraint. The Pilot Not Flying admitted our mistake; and the controller told us to just maintain FL210; then continue to descend via the arrival after MUZZY. There was no loss of separation with any other aircraft that we were aware of. As Pilot Flying; my failure to adequately monitor the aircraft and automation caused this event. The beginning of descent was busy on this flight. We were finishing our crew meals; and still briefing the arrival when we began the descent. I do not recall exactly what I was doing at the moment we passed through FL290 (when I should have selected managed descent); but I was not focused enough on monitoring and controlling the aircraft. It was the last leg of a long day (3 legs with 3 different aircraft; 7 hours flying; and an Operating Experience flight with a check airman). I was tired and concerned with operating into DFW as I have only been there a few times; and not at all recently. Fly the aircraft. As Pilot Flying; my main focus should have been on controlling the flight path of the airplane. If I needed to focus elsewhere; I should have handed control over to the other pilot.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported an altitude overshoot due to automation mismanagement.
Date: 202004
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Seatbelt
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: With the current adjusted procedure for flight attendants to sit in cabin seats for takeoff and landing; as 'X' I was occupying seat XD. Shortly after takeoff I realized my seatbelt was twisted and upon closer inspection I noticed that the safety pins were missing at all 4 attachment points. I notified the 'Y' and she assisted me in doing a spot check of the cabin; randomly checking between 30-40 seats. Not a single one had the safety pins installed on either of the 2 attachment points. I notified the other FAs and the Flight Deck. Many FAs wouldn't even know to check for this; I just so happened to have watched Tech Ops replace a seatbelt and saw the safety pin. It is alarming that an entire aircraft could be dispatched with what seems to be 100 NON-compliance on this issue...it makes me question what else it not installed properly.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported sitting in a passenger seat and checking the seat belt; Attendant noticed the safety pins were missing.  She and another Flight Attendant checked other seats to see if they also had safety pin which they did not.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pack 2 deferred was inoperative. After number 2 engine start we did a status check and noticed pack 2 inop which was expected. Below this was AP 2 inop. Expectation bias and fatigue caused failure to realize that AP 2 inop was not related to Pack 2 inop. Continued normal taxi and takeoff without AP 2 inop maintenance logbook entry. Wrote up entry during cruise. [Maintenance Control] communicated that this was an FMGC 2 failure after second engine start. Fatigue was an issue here.


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


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported not documenting an aircraft equipment problem in the maintenance log.