elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the KORRY 4 arrival to LGA. Earlier in the arrival; ATC had assigned us 310 KTS or greater and I as the Pilot Flying had switched the speeds to manual. After reaching KORRY; we were told to fly direct to DIALS for the Expressway Visual runway 31 and descend to 4;000. I dialed in 4;000; confirmed it with the captain; and selected Flight Level Change. It wasn't until about 8;000 feet that the captain noticed our airspeed had never been dialed back. To which he called out; 'airspeed'. I grabbed the throttles and thrusted them to idle and he instructed me to pitch up. I clicked off the autopilot and leveled off while he dialed back the airspeed to 250 KTS. To the best of my knowledge; we were at about 300 KTS when he first noticed the discrepancy. Once slowed; we continued the descent and re-engaged the automation. No notice was given by ATC regarding the incident and the rest of the flight continued without issues. In hindsight; what I should have done when given the instruction to descend to 4;000 was to first set the altitude; dial back the speed to 250; and then; once slowed to 250; select flight level change to begin the descent.


Second narrative: We were descending on the KORRY4. ATC assigned us best forward speed initially then 310 or greater and finally 300kts. Level at 10;000 ft. we were discussing some final thoughts on the Expressway Visual 31 as this was the First Officer's first time flying this approach. At this time ATC issued a descent to 4;000 ft. It wasn't until about 8;000 feet that I noticed the speed error.  I quickly instructed the First Officer to pitch up to the horizon while I dialed the speed back to 250 KTS after which we re-engaged the automation and continued our decent. The rest of the flight proceeded without incident. I did then recommend and discuss a better technique when in this situation arises again - dial in the altitude; then the speed and then when speed is reached; the desired descent automation.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported they failed to slow speed below 10;000 feet altitude.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting flight training with a student. After clearing for traffic; he performed some turns around a point and a couple sets of S-turns across two nearby roads.  In the last series of S-turns we were headed west and the terrain was rising and we ended up over housing at about 600 feet AGL instead of our intended 800 feet AGL in the more sparcely populated area to the east. My attention was primarily focused on traffic at that moment as the ADS-B display of traffic on the Garmin 430 was not displaying anything.  The ADS-B IN component had been squawked as inoperative and intermittent for months but the flight school had never required the aircraft owner to get it repaired.  After the maneuvers were completed we returned to the airport without issue.This incident was recently brought to my attention and I went to FlightAware to view the details of our flight path and altitude.  It was apparent we strayed over a populated area with the last S-turn of the second set of S-turn maneuvers; and were at approximately 600 to 700 feet AGL over the rising terrain when we finished the maneuver.  The inoperative ADS-B traffic on the Garmin 430 and the low visibility due to smoke was a factor that affected my focus on the developing low altitude situation; but in hindsight; the solution would have been to move an additional 12nm east north east into a more uncongested region to conduct maneuvers.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that while practicing maneuvers at low altitudes; they flew lower than planned over an area with housing.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff; after engaging TOGA; the right engine accelerated more rapidly than the left; causing the aircraft to drift left. I attempted to correct the nose steering with rudder pedal input; but the aircraft began veering hard to the left. I discontinued the takeoff and attempted to correct the aircraft back to the centerline with differential braking and tiller input. Initially; the nose gear was not responding to the tiller and a crew holding short of the runway reported that the nose gear appeared to be turned completely to the left and was smoking as the aircraft skidded on the runway. Suddenly; the nose gear moved rapidly to the right and steering control via the tiller was regained. We advised the Tower of our situation and cleared at the next taxiway. After clearing the runway; I stopped on the parallel taxiway and requested a tow back to the gate. Initially; Operations requested we taxi back to the gate and said they could not send a crew out on the taxiway to tow us back. Although I had apparently regained control of the nose wheel steering; I did not feel comfortable continuing to taxi because I did not know the cause of the failure and could not be sure it would not happen again while taxiing. I reiterated the need for a tow and they finally agreed to send a tug and crew.  I do not know why they did not want to send a tug; but when I tell them I need one; I expect it to be sent. After block-in; a Mechanic met us at the aircraft and told us it appeared the nose wheel steering momentarily went into bypass mode; rendering the steering inoperative.




Synopsis: The pilot of a B737-800 experienced a loss of control during takeoff roll. He observed a differential acceleration of the engines that caused a drift that he could not control with rudder pedal input; differential braking or tiller command. Once the takeoff was rejected; he regained control but was hesitant to taxi since he did not know the cause.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I worked inbound logbook item LDC# (Logbook Deferral Sheet) XXXXXXXX for forward clogged galley in conjunction with assigned RON bill of work. After unclogging forward galley I signed logbook completing repair. I did not work on the aft galley clog that was on MEL LDC# XXXXXXXX. On the associated [logbook deferral] #XXXXXXXXX for the previously clogged aft drain. My employee number was used along with my forward galley statement to sign off and clear the MEL. I did not perform the maintenance; sign for any work; or clear the MEL. This paperwork and safe entry was done without my knowledge. Perhaps supervision misread KD [Known Discrepancy] item and thought I had unclogged aft galley.Take time when reading KD and verify LDC numbers match. When paperwork is blank confirm with AMT (Aircraft Maintenance Technician) what work was actually performed before filling out forms.




Synopsis: Technician reported that maintenance entries with technician's employee number and log book entry were incorrectly used to clear an unrelated MEL item.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CAE.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C CAE
ATC / advisory: Tower CAE
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)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi from the terminal to the runway. During taxi (aircraft movement); the Captain received a cell phone call on his PED (Personal Electronic Device) and answered the call having an extended conversation while the aircraft was still moving. When we reached a taxiway runway intersection he asked me what our clearance was again. So I queried Ground Control to confirm our clearance. He deflected and explained that the clearance didn't make sense. I didn't find it out of the ordinary as we had to wait for a wheels up time anyways. The safety and situational awareness was compromised as a result of him having a cell phone conversation while operating the aircraft.During a four-day trip with this the Captain I witnessed many inconsistencies and deviations from FARs; [Company] FOM and [Company] POH. I want to bring attention to the fact then when I pointed out the deviations and inconsistencies I was met with his combatant; argumentative and dismissive responses. As the trip progressed from the first day; the communication quickly broke down into a let me show you the way real pilots do it setting; being berated from something as little as sending for an updated ATIS through ACARS while taxiing out. When I brought up these safety concerns they were dismissed as minor and he never had an issue before as he believes he is doing an above average performance as PIC. (Pilot in Command) This created an environment where I did not know what was expected as acceptable procedure on the flight deck. It was his way or the highway and I didn't want to create a further unsafe event with a confrontation.




Synopsis: A First Officer reported the Captain had a personal conversation on his cell phone during taxi for departure in addition to other procedural and FAR violations.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise we noticed the PRESSURIZATION OUTFLOW light illuminated. Inspection of pressurization panel revealed both packs at zero flow; cabin outflow valve closed; cabin rate indicator climbing 500 FPM; and cabin altitude passing 6;500 FT. We performed QRH procedures and the cabin altitude continued to climb. We then initiated a descent with ATC but were stopped at FL240. With cabin continuing to climb Capt declared an emergency to facilitate descent to 10;000 FT. Passing 14;000 FT the left pack; followed by the right pack; returned to normal operation. Approaching 10;000 FT we were in contact with Dispatch. With 10;700 LBS fuel Capt coordinated with Dispatch to divert for fuel.


Second narrative: We were flying at FL270 in clear weather with light chop and noticed the PRESSURIZATION OUTFLOW light illuminated. Inspection of the pressurization system panel revealed: both packs at zero flow; cabin outflow valve fully closed; cabin rate indication climbing at 500 FPM; and cabin altitude around 6;500 FT. We performed the QRH procedure and the cabin altitude continued to climb. We initiated a descent with ATC. We were stopped at FL240 for traffic. With the cabin continuing to climb; I declared an emergency to facilitate descent to 10;000 FT. Passing 14;000 the left pack; followed by the right pack returned to operation. The cabin began to pressurize to normal. In the descent we contacted Dispatch. I decided under current conditions it would be best to coordinate a divert for fuel. The rest of the flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: MD82 flight crew notices a pressurization outflow light illuminated at FL270. Inspection of the pressurization system panel reveals both packs at zero flow; cabin outflow valve fully closed; cabin rate indication climbing at 500 FPM; and cabin altitude around 6;500 FT. QRH procedures are unsuccessful and descent is initiated. At 14;000 FT packs return to normal operation but a diversion for fuel is deemed prudent.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During preflight; after Tower opened; MFR Ground Control provided the clearance which included the Jackson 1 Departure; JKSN1.OED; and assigned Runway 32 for departure. While programming the FMC; we included Runway 32 and line selected JKSN 1 departure. We reviewed the departure and noted that the course was a slight right turn towards OED VOR and that our first point after OED was the BRUTE intersection which was a southeast course out of OED with an MEA of 8;800 feet. After departing and climbing towards OED VOR; the Captain elected to fly at MCT (Maximum Continuous Thrust) to gain altitude and reach 8;800 as soon as possible. Both pilots noticed that the FMC course was commanding a right turn just prior to OED towards BRUTE instead of a slight left turn to enter the hold at OED to continue climb to MEA. At that point; we were passing 7;800 feet; climbing at approximately 3;000 FPM in VMC conditions. [We] elected to continue the right turn as we would reach 8;800 feet in a very short time instead of manually programming the hold or flying raw data to teardrop into the holding pattern. We reached 8;800 feet while still in the turn from OED towards BRUTE; thereby; ensuring terrain clearance in visual conditions. ATC did mention that they were encountering issues with most aircraft making the right turn and not proceeding to OED and climbing in the holding pattern. The 10-3C Jeppesen page only has a very small note in standard font depicting the hold and subsequent requirement to climb in the hold until reaching the MEA/MCA. The FMGC line selectable departure does not insert a holding pattern or climb constraint and there is no mention on the 10-7 page warning crews that they will need to manually build a holding pattern at OED if a Runway 32 departure is assigned.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported deviating from departure clearance to avoid terrain during departure from MFR airport.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were being vectored on a left downwind for a Visual Approach to Runway 27 at IAH. Aircraft were being turned on to about a 25 mile final. Aircraft were also given a descent to 2000 feet and told that they would be outside the Class B airspace. I am concerned because this area has a lot of VFR traffic; many of whom do not talk to Approach Control and there is no way to guarantee that they have an operable transponder that is turned on and accurate. Even when the 'heavies' reach the Class B ring they are at the very bottom of protected airspace. Most VFR pilots in this area feel they are safe from airliners if they remain outside (below) Class B airspace. Descending airliners into a busy General Aviation flying area; one that includes a practice area for student pilots; is a very hazardous practice.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Approach Control assigned an altitude below the Class B airspace into an area known as a VFR student pilot practice area.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff at approximately 8;000 MSL we had an ECAM; EGT Limit Exceeded No. 1 Engine. Captain flew the aircraft while I ran the ECAM. A red tick mark was present on the No. 1 EGT gauge. Upon reducing thrust between MCT and CLIMB detent the EGT was back in limits and thrust lever remained in CLM detent until completion of ECAM and emergency declared and emergency return to the field coordinated. Captain left thrust levers in CL detent with auto thrust engaged until hand flying the visual approach. Limits were never again exceeded.During the return to field the FMGC would not take the foreign airport identifier as a new destination. Four attempts were made by First Officer and verified by Captain. We even tried the alternate three letter identifier but that did not work either. We elected to not get fixated on automation and loaded the XR ILS manually and flew a visual approach to the runway. Could not get landing performance data and contacting Dispatch at the critical time was considered too distracting during the landing phase. The overweight landing checklist was accomplished with the noted exception of land performance data. Landing was uneventful. Write ups for over temp and overweight landing were accomplished by Maintenance.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport for an overweight landing following a left engine over temperature event.  During the return some FMS and performance data functions failed to function.