elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
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: Positional / Directional Sensing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At top of climb we began to experience navigation failure of both Captain & First Officer primary heading displays. This led to the autopilot disconnecting. Also; we experienced dual map failures on both navigation displays. This resulted in navigating with the standby compass as our only source of aircraft heading. We completed the checklist items for the given situation. The failures were not corrected.We reversed course and asked ATC for a heading back to departure airport. With no navigation displays; no autopilot available; and drifting heading displays we [advised ATC]. No other events to report. We were able to fly ATC assigned headings and get a visual approach for landing.We recorded issues in the aircraft logbook and ended our flight day.


Second narrative: On initial departure; I experienced a Map Fail on my ND (Navigational Display). It reset itself and did not create an issue. We did not feel that this was unusual and continued. Prior to the level off at cruise altitude; this happened again. The order of failure was first an amber 'Heading' on the comparator; a couple of seconds later a 'Map Fail' on the ND and simultaneously Autopilot disconnect and Flight Director failure. This time we reset our RMI headings to the compass. Once the headings were reset; everything came back.After level at cruise altitude; the failure occurred several more times. In between resetting the RMI headings; autopilot; and FD for each occurrence; the captain ran the 'ATTITUDE / HEADING FAIL' checklist which did not resolve the issue. At first; we thought that only one heading was wandering; however it became clear that both headings were wandering.We requested the return to [departure airport] with ATC and notified dispatch that we were returning. The Heading failures on return seemed to be constant. Each reset seemed to last only about 3 minutes. The Captain had assumed the controls and he was not able to use the autopilot on the return; hand flying only.


Synopsis: MD83 flight crew reported returning to departure airport following the loss of both primary heading displays at top of climb.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Stock item X; ice release labeled flammable and stickered Hazmat was found on the jetbridge at gate X




Synopsis: Air Carrier Personnel reported a Hazmat labeled parcel was 'found on a gate jetbridge'.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were told by ground to pull up and hold short of runway 5L then monitor tower. We did. On the tower frequency for 5L; short of 5L; we could hear the tower transmissions. Tower gave us a takeoff clearance. I responded and we taxied onto the runway. After we crossed the runway hold short line; tower gave us the clearance again. I responded a second time. He then stated; I can see you moving but can't hear you and instructed to begin takeoff roll or exit the runway.We taxied off the runway without ever powering up the engines to a takeoff setting. Once clear; we switched back to ground and the radios worked fine. Ground gave us the tower freq for runway 5R and to again taxi up to and hold short of 5L. We switched and tower could now hear our transmissions. Holding short of the runway a second time another aircraft ended up with the same issue and was given a takeoff clearance; but tower could not hear their response.Tower then instructed them to change frequencies to the 5L frequency which was the inoperative frequency for transmitting to tower. I corrected tower that 119.3 was the frequency we were on when we had that same experience and suggested he advise the aircraft to switch to 127.45; the 5R frequency. The other aircraft switched frequencies and proceeded to takeoff. We waited a few minutes and then completed our takeoff and flight. Once enroute; we back tracked the digital departure ATIS and on the last page it stated to use 127.45 to contact tower. The controller was just simply transmitting on both frequencies; but only listening to one and both aircraft must have missed the NOTAM in the departure ATIS on the last page.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported having a problem communicating with Tower Controller at RDU because of a NOTAM'd outage of the frequency.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Turbulence; Rain; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On route to intercepting the localizer Runway 19 on the approach the door opened unexpectedly. The resulting sound; wind and general turbulence caused me to descend below the glideslope and generate a low altitude alarm at the control facility.Because the weather was at minimums and I was having trouble controlling the aircraft I elected to abort the approach and climb. ATC [gave] me instructions to higher altitudes which I had trouble maintaining due to the way the aircraft was performing with the door ajar and the fact that I was in IMC with turbulence.I was finally able to gain consistent control of the aircraft and ATC guided me to higher altitude outside of IMC and I was able (with ATC help) to get to [another airport] where I was able to land uneventfully. Throughout the entire process I had difficulty staying on altitude and being able to quickly reach assigned headings. At [the alternate airport] a 45 knot cross wind at altitude made it difficult to stay on the ILS; but I managed to stay within tolerances.I did not [request priority handling] because I felt I could handle the situation without doing that. I recognized the controllers had their hands full with the inclement weather and didn't want to further inconvenience them and other pilots.




Synopsis: The pilot of a BE58 experienced an unexpected opening of the cabin door on approach. A go-around and diversion was executed in instrument conditions with turbulence; where a successful landing was made.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At cruise altitude; OAK ATIS reported 300 foot ceiling and one mile visibility. We briefed and set up for the ILS to Runway 30 shortened. We reviewed the NOTAM's for Runway 30 since there were several. I noticed the ILS to Runway 28R went down to 200 foot ceiling. I did not check the NOTAM's for ILS 28R at cruise. Fifteen miles from the runway on vectors; we were directed to climb to 5;000 feet and turn downwind. There was an opposite direction aircraft on missed approach from Runway 12. On downwind; we discussed the ceiling must be lower than 300 feet. I mentioned that the ILS to 28R has approach lights; goes down to 200 feet; and is further inland than Runway 30. We set up; briefed; and flew the ILS 28R approach to landing. I did not check NOTAM's for ILS 28R while on downwind. While at the gate preparing for the next leg; I asked Dispatch for a takeoff alternate and then noticed the NOTAM for the ILS 28R DA of 337 feet for a 191 foot crane .2 NM northeast of Runway 28R. Per the chart; we had set and flown to a DA of 206 feet. The approach lights were in sight by the APPROACHING MINIMUMS call; but we were not aware of the NOTAM when we flew the approach.  I had two chances to review the NOTAMS for 28R and missed them both times. The first time; because of my focus on a newly configured runway; and the second time; because I was rushing to set up and brief the new approach.


Second narrative: [We were] on approach into Oakland and realized that the other flights were not landing on Runway 30. The Captain suggested flying approach into Runway 28R because the approach minimums are lower. After reviewing the data; I agreed. The flight landed and blocked into the gate uneventfully. After takeoff for the next flight; while climbing out; we heard a flight inbound to Oakland talking about the higher approach minimums for Runway 28R. This was when we realized we flew to the wrong minimums for Runway 28R. Upon hearing that; we reviewed the NOTAM's and; sure enough; the approach minimums were higher for Runway 28R due to an obstacle.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reports overlooking a NOTAM raising the DA for the Runway 28R ILS 337 feet due to a crane near the approach end of the runway. The published DA of 209 feet is used for the approach and landing and the error is not discovered until after gate arrival.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft upon arrival at ZZZ for scheduled A check. Found the crew O2 bottle shut off valve safety wired backwards. Safety wire as installed; would not resist the valve from turning towards the closed position.




Synopsis: Technician reported discovering during a scheduled A check; that the crew oxygen bottle had the valve safety wired backwards and made repairs.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am reporting a safety concern. Upon pulling into gate in TPA (and really anywhere else); we encountered very heavy rain falling (Ramp [Control] in this case was closed); so Ramp used the MAPS Signal Light Bar. This report is not dependent on using the Mobile Aircraft Parking System; however. This report is to highlight [that] during heavy downpour of rain the J-line is near indiscernible. I suggest the marshaller (absent the MAPS vehicle); first stand on the final parking spot where the nose wheel will finally rest and take his lit wands and purposefully wave vertically up and down on to where the extended J-line is located (or; make the J-line visible in times where it is under heavy water). After the pilot locates the J-line; then; and only then; I suggest the marshaller relocate himself to the staging position to further guide the aircraft to the gate; until then; without being able to easily locate the J-line (including at what angle to enter the gate area); it is next to impossible to locate the extended J-line to line up the aircraft. This is a HAZARD. In times of using the MAPS vehicle; directionality is only dependent on the MAPS signals; and the aircraft may already be unaligned to enter; despite perhaps receiving a left a left or right arrow from the MAPS vehicle to enter. This needs to be clarified and further looked at. Of course; if it is unsafe to enter the gate area; stop; set the parking brake; and radio your intentions to ramp personnel; but this is a report to highlight the lack of training which will cause undue hazards.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the J-line used for alignment guidance entering the ramp area is hard to see in heavy rain conditions; and the marshaling procedure should be changed to account for that.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Park post-arrival
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After I aligned the aircraft with the gate; I noticed the chocks were in position.  I then transferred my attention to the Marshaller providing positive guidance.  Smoothly and slowly approaching the Marshaller's stop signal; I felt a slight bump - after that the Marshaller gave me abrupt opposite direction guidance and then simply the stop guidance; and shook his head.  I spoke to the Gate Agent in the jetbridge who concurred with my description of the event and informed me that he saw the right portion of my nose gear hit the chocks.  FO inspected the nose gear and did not notice any damage; I called Maintenance Control to report a precautionary discrepancy (because I could not enter it myself at the point).  I described to them what happened.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that while being marshalled into the gate; the aircraft nose gear hit the chocks.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D SUA
ATC / advisory: Tower SUA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After missing a hold short point for Runway 7/12 [HS2]; I asked the Controller for departure to the northwest. Once off of the ground I proceeded on course to the northwest. A pilot on downwind and I saw each other approximately 200 FT horizontally from each other and about 150 vertically. I dove down to 600 FT and the other pilot climbed. Why did this happen? To begin with...Get-there-itis. I had told my wife I would be home for dinner and I was trying to make it. That in combination with a tired and hot pilot began a chain of events.1. I had spent all day walking and shopping with friends on a hot day. Although I wasn't dehydrated; I was tired. NO ALCOHOL was consumed during this trip! Only sweet ice tea.2. I checked the winds before leaving and added 24 gallons of fuel to the aircraft for a total for 45 gallons. I did not top off the tanks to 53 gallons due to weight limitations with my passengers.3. Winds during the return flight were headwinds with most winds out of the north between 280 and 350 degrees. Due to airspace restrictions with MIA airspace; controllers diverted me to lower altitudes. The hot Florida day made for a very bumpy ride at 1;500 MSL.4. After two (2) hours of a bumpy headwind flight; passengers had to use the bathroom; so I diverted to SUA for both fuel and a bathroom break.5. I was new to the airport and asked for a progressive taxi; which I received. The rest is history. I have talked this over with my spouse. There will NEVER be another version of get-there-itis as long as I'm a pilot. She told me to next time either make a call home or spend the night.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports an unplanned fuel stop and bathroom break at SUA. On departure a hold line is inadvertently crossed (HS2) and the left crosswind turn on course is made without regard to downwind traffic in the pattern; resulting in a NMAC. Fatigue and get-home-itis were cited as factors.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching the non-towered airport and started broadcasting my position about 10 miles out. I entered the traffic pattern and noticed another plane on the other side of the runway. I thought that the plane was going away from the airport and then as I turned base; saw that the other plane was turning toward the airport as well. I broke off the approach; saw the plane on final; and starting keying my microphone to ask him why he hadn't announced his position. It was then that I realized that I had the CTAF frequency in the standby position and that I had been broadcasting on the wrong frequency. And then it got worse. I realized that the runway I was landing on must have a right traffic pattern and I had been flying a standard left traffic pattern. I pride myself on being very careful and following procedures. How could this happen to me? As I thought about this after landing; I realized that I had not done two things that I should have. I had not double checked to make sure the CTAF frequency was in the right spot. I had also not checked the AFD for non-standard traffic patterns. Why hadn't I checked the AFD when I always do that? Because I had flown to this airport a number of times; enough to assume that I knew the airport. However; because of normal prevailing winds; I had always used the opposite runway; which has normal left traffic. So my assumed familiarity with the airport had led me to be complacent and not check the AFD for traffic pattern of this runway.This was a wakeup call for me and showed me how complacency can lead down a dangerous road. While there had been no danger of collision this time because I had had the other plane in sight the entire time; it clearly could in other circumstances have been dangerous. From now on; I will be absolutely faithful in following procedures and double check; familiar airport or not.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported he flew an incorrect pattern at a non-towered airport and was broadcasting on the wrong CTAF frequency.