elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Released flight payload 44.0; fuel 31.3  with [an] alternate.Ramp agent called and advised acft 62.1 Fuel on Board (FOB); questioned estimated payload was told could be as high as 60.0; ran numbers 59.0 Landing Gross Weight (LGW) 267237 vs Maximum Gross Weight (MLGW) 267.957.0 lgw  26535255.0 lgw  263470told ramp agent wasn't comfortable with anymore than 55.0.  Released flt capped 55.0/FOB 62.1Was advised aircraft landed with 2;500 lbs fuel on board.


Second narrative: The flight release showed 62;100 pounds of fuel supposedly already on the aircraft and fuel over destination was 43;307 pounds. This is considerably more fuel than we would ever normally carry leading us to believe fuel was not going to be an issue for us.Upon arrival at the airplane the fuel ticket showed 62.1 before fueling and 62.1 after fueling and no entry in the total metered fuel box. Indicated fuel quantity was 62.1 and fuel distribution agreed.Climbing through flight level 180 the fuel synoptic appeared normal. Enroute fuel flow fuel used and the prog/fuel predict all correlated with flight plan with FOD of 43;000.In preparation for landing the weight on the Take Off page calculated a Vapp of 138. Once the aircraft was fully configured the airspeed hook on both PFD;s showed that 138 was in excess of the required speed. All airspeed and pitch indications on both pilots' displays confirmed the hook. I then independently verified the AOA using the Flight Path Vector and the aircraft pitch compared with the ILS. This independent verification also confirmed the hook. A normal landing followed. We both confirmed that the fuel system was in error showing 61;400 pounds at landing. Maintenance was notified and a discrepancy was entered in the Aircraft Maintenance Log AML.The following night I queried maintenance about this aircraft to find out what happened. He told me they had stacked the tanks and that we landed with a total of 2;600 pounds not the 43;000 pounds on the flight plan. We of course had no real indication of this including the lack of any low fuel warning. Massive Fuel system malfunction.


Synopsis: Large Transport aircraft First Officer reports landing with 43;000 pounds of fuel on board; but with the aircraft handling as if it was much lighter. The fuel system was written up and Maintenance discovered that the fuel tanks contained only 2;500 pounds of fuel.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the JANNY3 into KBUR and due to gusty winds and a slight change of direction to our benefit; we elected to switch approaches from the ILS 8 to RNAV visual 33. SoCal cleared us direct to GZILA. We were cleared to 4000 ft and cleared for the approach. Around 4500 ft; ATC called and told us to climb to 5000 ft and that we set off an alert. We immediately climbed and leveled off at 5000 ft. With the change of approaches; we were very busy and failed to monitor and/or query the controller on our clearance. GZILA had a crossing restriction of 6000 ft and we should of had better situational awareness. Whether the mistake was due to ATC or us; we should have caught it with the terrain in the area.


Second narrative: We were inbound to Burbank on the JANNY 3 arrival when our approach was switched from the ILS RWY 8 to the RNAV visual Rwy 33; and were cleared direct to GZILA intersection; descend to 4000 ft. I turned the aircraft towards the GZILA intersection; put 4000 ft in the altitude window; and started a vertical descent on the MCP. Approaching GZILA intersection at approximately 4500 ft; we were informed by ATC that we have set off an altitude alert and instructed to climb immediately to 5;000 ft. We did so. My first officer and I were both extremely busy at this point of the arrival; especially with the change in approaches. Whether I misheard the clearance; or the controller misspoke; I should have noticed that GZILA intersection has a crossing restriction of 6;000 ft and questioned the clearance.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported being cleared to a lower than published altitude over high terrain which led to a low altitude alert.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9999
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When changing the frequency from Ground to the Ramp; I misidentified Taxiway H as M in ramp area while I was told to taxi via H; A; M (the actual way I went was H; A; H). As soon as I found it; I stopped the aircraft; and re-joined Taxiway M to the gate. The possible reason might be same taxiway; but different name. West of Taxiway A; Taxiway H change the name to H1; but it is a straight line. It made me think the next taxiway to the south is M; but it is H. Lack of ground painting and signboard at the intersection of Taxiway A and H. I believe it will do some help if there is one to notify pilots Taxiway H not on the same line.




Synopsis: A Captain taxiing into the International Terminal at SFO became confused by the lack of signage on Taxiway A when Ramp Taxiways H1; H and M do not align with corresponding outer taxiways of the designation.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11; Tower SFB
Second aircraft: SR20
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working STN/STV with a couple departures and practice approaches into SFB. A PA-44 was doing practice approaches to Runway 9L; when he went missed; I noticed he was northwest bound. I called SFB and questioned what he was doing; they said he was turning to HDG 050. That put him in my downwind but I had no traffic. I had a SR20 depart a few minutes before that also on a bad heading. So after I identified the PA-44; an A330 was calling. I told the A330 to 'ident' and was looking for the FLM/CIC to have them call the Tower to see what was going on up there. When the FLM came over he said are you ok with those two; I looked and the A330 was turning; I tried to turn him back but then I decided west was better and went back to the west. Separation was lost between the A330 and the PA-44. The A330 checked in turning to a heading of 280 and I didn't hear it. I was also advised by FLM that the Tower assigned the A330 a 280 heading. Recommendation; I should have heard the check-in turning to a 280 heading; that was when I was calling for the FLM. Tower has to be careful with headings.


Second narrative: I cleared an A330 for takeoff; however I issued the reciprocal heading 280 (which is for a West runway operation) instead of heading 080; which was the east runway operation we were on. The aircraft turned and lost separation. Recommendation; listen more carefully to the clearance issued; to ensure the correct heading is issued.


Synopsis: F11 Controller described a conflict event when failing to hear the pilots initial heading report which was issued in error by the SFB Controller.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Globemaster (C-17)
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During cruise the AP failed and was unable to be reset inflight so the rest of the flight was hand flown. During the approach we encountered wake turbulence from a C-17 and executed a go around. ATC assigned runway heading to 4000 and reaching 3500 feet we received a traffic alert and an RA which we complied with. We were then vectored back for another approach without incident.




Synopsis: EMB-170 First Officer reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence from a C-17.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: From a normal stabilized approach; at about 50 feet AGL the Pilot Flying reduced power and slowly began the landing flare on Runway XXR. At about 20 feet the aircraft began to increase in sink rate and within one second landing occurred at a vertical speed of -600 FPM. Pilot Flying described the inability to increase back pressure on the control column during the flare due to the FO chair padding.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a hard landing resulted when control column movement was restricted by the FO's seat padding.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After I landed on Runway XX I was cleared onto taxiway Charlie and to cross Runway XY. I was also told to contact Ground after crossing Runway XY. I misunderstood the 'contact' Ground for 'monitor' Ground. After I crossed Runway XY I switched my radio to the ground frequency and kept rolling on taxiway charlie onto taxiway alpha. It was at this point that I was given the number for the Tower to call. I called the Tower as soon as I was out of the airplane and explained what I did and what my mistake was. I knew there was someone landing on Runway XY after I had crossed it; from hearing the Tower frequency prior; and the reason I wanted to get off of taxiway charlie was to make sure I was out of the way of the landing aircraft. I also misunderstood 'contact' Ground for 'monitor' Ground. My mistake was not contacting Ground before I moved anywhere after crossing Runway XY. I should have crossed Runway XY; stopped before reaching taxiway alpha; and contacted Ground before moving anywhere. I understand that this mistake could have caused a Ground aircraft collision; because I was not told to continue onto taxiway alpha. I also understand the importance of complying with all the ATC directions in order to keep myself and the others around me safe. To prevent a recurrence; I understand now the importance of listening for 'monitor' vs 'contact' and also being very aware of how far I am cleared to move. When I am cleared to cross a runway; this means to cross the runway and then stop before receiving more instructions. Understanding this concept will prevent this happening again.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported confusion with ATC taxi clearance led to a taxiway incursion.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Employees in Terminal X are not being issued PPE; specifically masks; to avoid contracting the COVID-19 virus; from management. The tool rooms where gloves and other PPE products are stored have informed me that management will be handing out the N-95 or equivalent masks to maintain accountability and/or to prevent employees from 'hoarding supplies.'




Synopsis: Technician reported that employees are not being issued PPE; especially masks; which are needed to avoid contracting the COVID-19 virus.
Date: 201712
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: New iPad case is magnetic. Did IT or Flt Ops research if these are safe; or legal to have on the aircraft; or how far away from the mag compass they need to be without causing deviations?




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain questioned the legality of a new electronic tablet case that is magnetic and could affect the magnetic compass.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was the First Officer; pilot not flying; on a Falcon 2000 aircraft. While cruising at FL410 we encountered an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of the right engine. We declared an emergency; made a descent under ATC vectoring back toward [the airport]; made a visual approach and uneventful single-engine landing.The Captain elected not to try a restart. Emergency equipment at [the airport] was requested and supplied. We taxied in the FBO after landing.Subsequently; after Maintenance performed their tests and checks it was determined that the probable cause was fuel starvation due to fuel becoming too dense to pass through the fuel lines. The SAT at FL410 was -70C. That is a temperature that I have not encountered in 46 years of flying. I am a retired major airline pilot; having flown numerous airline and corporate jet aircraft; with appropriate type ratings.The engine-driven fuel pump was replaced as a precaution; though the incumbent pump tested properly. We had not been using Prist [anti ice fuel additive]. Upon checking with Falcon Jet; we were told that -70C is the limit for the airframe.It would be a good idea for the appropriate organizations to review the aircraft limitations and issue a change to the limitations if necessary.




Synopsis: Falcon 2000 First Officer experiences an engine failure at FL410 and diversion; that is later determined to be the result of the -70 degrees C air that they were flying in at the time.
Date: 201202
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival my door; 4L; would not disarm. The lever was stuck. I turned to my flying partner who had been able to disarm his door appropriately. As I called the Captain and the Purser he tried to disarm my door but was also unable to do so. The Captain instructed me to guard the door and if anyone tried to enter to hold the lever down. I did as directed. Meanwhile the passengers were deplaning as usual. The Catering crew arrived at Door 4R and knocked on the window per procedure to verify they could open the door. I signaled 'NO'. I also tried to call the Captain to ask for his instruction as to what to do with that door as the caterers were there to open the door only to find out the pilots had already left. I was very upset by this as there was trouble in the Cabin and my understanding is the Captain cannot leave until it is safe to do so. I don't think it was safe to leave the plane with any door still armed. I made a judgment call to wait for help. The caterers understood my signal and responded by not opening the door. The Mechanic came on board and opened Door 4R for the caterers. The Mechanic then attempted to disarm my door but was unable to do so. He asked me stay and watch the door until he came back because he needed to get more mechanics involved. My Purser and I stayed by the door until the Mechanic returned and left after asking the Mechanic if I could go.




Synopsis: When unable to disarm her assigned passenger exit slide at Door 4L on the B757-200; a Flight Attendant guarded it against its inappropriate operation until Maintenance arrived to relieve her. The reporter expressed dismay that after informing the Captain of the problem he asked her to guard the door and then; apparently; left the aircraft without insuring the problem was resolved.