elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flight to MDW was normal other than being late. Upon contact with MDW Tower; we were told to keep our approach tight and plan minimal time on the runway for departures. Upon landing; we were told to exit at 13R; and if we could not make that runway; exit at the forward high speed (D) and taxi on the forward high speed only. We understood this to mean we were not cleared onto Taxiway Y for some reason. We cleared onto D; but could not actually get completely clear of the runway because we thought we had to hold short of D. Tower did clear a plane to take off behind us; and we were not actually on the runway. We just weren't past the hold short markings. Upon switching to Ground; we could not contact them due to congestion. When we were finally able to talk to Ground; they told us to clear the runway and join Y. We then taxied to the gate without any further problems. They reminded us that we were allowed to join Y upon clearing the runway per the AIM; but we thought Tower restricted us from joining Y. Looking back; perhaps Tower wanted us to join the forward high speed only as opposed to the reverse; but the wording led to confusion on our part if that is what was intended.


Second narrative: We contacted Ground Control who gave us taxi instructions; and then stated we should have gotten further from the runway onto the taxiway. I told him; 'We were cleared to exit the forward high speed exit only.' He said; 'The AIM states you can turn onto a taxiway to clear the runway;' which we knew. I just wasn't sure the way the clearance was given whether we should or not.


Synopsis: After landing at MDW and told by ATC to exit at the Taxiway D only; the confused crew stopped prior to Taxiway Y and remained there until ATC gave further clearance along with an admonishment about not clearing the runway.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In my aircraft (Aircraft X) I was positioned at the approach end but off Runway XX at ZZZ Airport; in preparation for taking Runway XX for my second takeoff of the morning. An aircraft (Aircraft Y) with a male voice pilot called inbound for Runway XY. Shortly; a female voice pilot in a Hawker aircraft (Aircraft Z) called 10 miles out for Runway XX. I radioed and advised I would wait for landing traffic Runway XY. Then; Aircraft Z called her turn to base for Runway XX. Shortly; Aircraft Y radioed he was on a 5 mile approach for Runway XY. I visually saw the incoming Aircraft Z on final approach for Runway XX at the same time she called final for Runway XX. The pilot of Aircraft Y radioed he would change to downwind for Runway XX. Aircraft Z passed visually by me as I was perpendicular to the Runway XX. I watched her land; complete her taxi and turnoff off the runway on XX taxiway; about midfield; when she called clear of Runway XX. I checked to my sides and scanned for Aircraft Y; but did not see that aircraft. I felt that with the passage of time that occurred Aircraft Y was downwind Runway XX and behind my field of vision. I called taking Runway XX with a left turnout to leave the area. I rolled; lifted off; maintained Runway XX heading for 3/4 to 1 mile; then turned left while continuing to climb. Then I heard the pilot of Aircraft Y say an aircraft just crossed under him. I looked back and saw his aircraft above; perpendicular to and ahead of my flight path. I radioed that I had just departed Runway XX having given a prior announcement that I was making a left turnout and that I thought he was much further downwind. He repeated that I crossed underneath him. I said I was sorry; but that I calculated him much further downwind based upon his call of change to downwind [Runway] XX. There was no other comment from either of us.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a Near Mid Air Collision during departure.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Shortly after passing EMMLY on our flight plan route; Center queried us where we were going. We said 'Columbus'. He said okay; you're cleared via ETAME VHP GUNNE. I told the Captain that was weird since our original route ETANE VHP GUNNE was so close. Well; upon looking at our release; we were filed ETAME (never ETANE). Not sure if I saw it wrong or just pushed the wrong button; but neither of us caught it because it looked so similar. Moreover; our route didn't look wrong because ETANE and ETAME are only 27 NM apart. Why? I even messed it up on this report at least three times.


Second narrative: We were filed via the ETAME waypoint; but misentered it in the FMC and flew to ETANE. The two points are only 27 miles apart; and neither the First Officer nor I caught the mistake. We did all checklists and briefings per the FOM; and I even looked at the route to make sure all the points made directional sense; but the similar waypoint names escaped both of us.


Synopsis: First officer and Captain reported of a mistake in typing an intersection name that caused ATC to question where they were going. Similar fixes separated by 27 miles and only different by one letter.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DFW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we taxied out of the GA ramp at DFW we exited Spot 1 with instructions to taxi to Taxi Juliet to Echo Foxtrot to 17C.  Our maps showed a different taxiway and we thought Juliet was off of our left and began the turn.  The road in which we turned on was not clearly marked from that direction and we were unaware of our mistake until we were already to far down the road to make the turn back around.  We tried making the turn but were unable and stuck our right main wheel in the grass.  Airport personnel came to assist the situation and had us pulled out and turned around quickly.  I believe just putting a sign next to the road stating that it is a road and not a Taxiway will do a great deal as I have heard that I was not the first nor the last person to make this mistake.  The road markings were intact and look pretty good but a sign or another distinguishing mark leading to Taxiway Juliet would be a great help to the next guy.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reports turning on to a vehicle road at DFW after receiving clearance to taxi from spot 1 Juliet.  Help from airport personnel is required to turn the aircraft around.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were operating as (flight) from ZZZ1-ZZZ. While on descent into ZZZ through approximately 18;000 feet we noticed an odor once we entered visible moisture. The odor persisted while on descent but once we were out of the visible moisture; the odor lessened.   Upon arrival to the gate and after engine shutdown; one of the aft Flight Attendants called to report that the odor was very strong in the aft of the aircraft.   A logbook entry was made and Maintenance was called. I also spoke with the [Duty Manager] and made a report to him regarding the cabin odor.   After the aircraft was deplaned; the flight attendants and I felt some symptoms and we spoke with Medlink. After conferring with Medlink; we decided to go to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. During cruise; we had a Lavatory Smoke warning which only lasted a few seconds. The flight attendants performed an inspection of all three lavatories and found no evidence of smoke or fumes in any of the lavatories.


Second narrative: [Report narrative added no additional information.]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported a fume event during arrival descent. Entire flight crew received medical evaluation and treatment at local hospital.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nozzle
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On Date I was assigned to the fuel nozzle mod on the Left Engine; Aircraft X. I documented the MPNs and SNs of the removed fuel nozzles on card number 1 as well as 5 non-routines; NR1; NR2; NR3; NR4; and NR5. On Date1; a week later; Stores Manager notified me that I documented the wrong MPNs and SNs. The fuel nozzles were never shipped out to the vendor. Instead; used fuel components sat in ZZZ Stores for a week. He also stated that only I can correct the info on the unserviceable tags. Since there is no signature or stamp on the unserviceable tag; his instruction was diametrically false. Any stock clerk could make the corrections on the unserviceable tag. I asked Stores to print new unserviceable tags using the existing tracking #. They said it was impossible because all 18 fuel nozzles were received. The resultant corrections on the unserviceable tags made the document almost unreadable. Since the error was pointed out to me; I had to void and correct the rotatable parts info on the aforementioned non-routines. Then I had the clerk rescan the non-routines to the software. However; the non-routines could not be reopened in a different program to update the parts info. Ergo; I had to file a message.The paperwork burden on the mechanic is overwhelming and a distraction from the actual work. If Stores can process parts after discovering an error why is the mechanic's participation even required? Encumbering mechanics with needless administrative work is a distraction which ultimately leads to human errors. The overwhelming paperwork saddled onto mechanics is leading to an unsafe environment; parts entry into the program; Technical Service Items with unreadable language; documentation that is worse than an MIT entrance exam; etc. All taking the mechanic's critical attention away from the actual maintenance.




Synopsis: Technician reported communications problems and software issues when trying to route engine fuel nozzles to a vendor for repair.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Agusta Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Search and Rescue
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing a hoist rescue mission; three aircraft from a local city fire department were returning to base. One aircraft was cancelled and made a 180 degree turn prior to leaving the area. This aircraft was approximately one mile south and not involved. The other two aircraft involved in the rescue were returning from the incident via the same standard helicopter arrival route for the home base airport. Both aircraft were in contact with each other; however each pilot believed the other aircraft was in a different location than they actually were. The larger faster aircraft overflew the other by approximately 200 vertical feet causing that pilot to initiate a rapid descent. The overflying aircraft crew was unaware of the incident until notified by the other pilot. Both aircraft returned safely to base and a thorough debrief with all members involved was conducted.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported an NMAC with another helicopter as both aircraft returned from a rescue mission via the same standard arrival route to their home base. Both aircraft believed the other was in a different location.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon checking AML and release it was determined our aircraft required a CAT 2 confidence check. It was also noticed that the aircraft was CAT 2 MEL. As Captain I advised the FO that we would; given the opportunity; perform  our visual arrival into ZZZ as if it were a CAT 2 approach. We performed all the required procedures for the CAT 2. All went as planned and our aircraft passed all required pre-testing. The appropriate procedure was then followed to report completion of the required confidence check. It was then that I was advised that our confidence check was not authorized as the aircraft was still under a CAT 2 MEL. I was also advised that the CAT 2 MEL should not have been in place; but had not properly had that MEL removed.As a result of no associated MEL which would require a CAT 2 MEL; it was believed that it was directly related to a required confidence check. Lots of our aircraft have needed confidence checks to regain currency due to time in storage. I made this assumption incorrectlyPracticing advanced approaches in conditions not requiring  them only helps to build proficiency and confidence. The fact that the plane was not CAT 2 authorized had no effect on our approach as we didn't need to; nor did we; deviate from anything that would have occurred making any other ILS on Runway XL. In reality; the aircraft tested appropriately and if it hadn't that would have been noted and reported.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported executing a CAT II confidence check approach which was not authorized.
Date: 201303
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in an incident where I lost control of my tractor and it ran into a Lav truck. I was running a trip as a luggage distributor and I had dropped off all my bags except those for the HUB airports. I went into the makeup area with all the HUB stations to drop off the bags for two of the stations but; to my surprise; it said that one of the flights was already at its gate but wouldn't leave until almost three hours later. [However;] my scanner wasn't set right so the time on it was not accurate. As a result I had no way of telling what time it really was and when I saw the flight was already on the ground it made me think I was falling really behind on time; so I got into a kind of hurry mode. I drove out to the gate where that trip was and dropped off the three bags on the orange carts and drove off in a hurry. Right around the corner was a turn that I decided to take because; that way; it would be a straight shot to drop off one of the other flights' bags if the plane wasn't at its gate and get back to the assignment room as soon as I could. Right when I took that turn I tried pressing the brake but ended up pressing both the brake and gas pedal at the same time and when I tried to readjust I was already mid-turn and my body had started to slide from the inertia. I ended up falling off the tractor but was able to land on my feet; running to prevent myself from falling; however the tractor kept turning and ran into a parked Lav truck and then bounced into another Lav truck and ran into some dollies which slowed it down enough for me to catch up and firmly press the brake down with my hand. I had been in the middle of grabbing and pulling the seatbelt across my body [while already] in motion; until I got to the turn where I had to release the belt so; at the time of the incident; I was not wearing a seatbelt--a major mistake on my part.




Synopsis: A baggage tractor driver; hurrying because he had no accurate way to determine the time relative to the scheduled departure time of flights to which he was delivering bags; attempted to take a turn at too high a speed and was ejected from the vehicle. The unmanned baggage vehicle continued uncontrolled and struck two lavatory trucks and several baggage carts.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise; we noticed that the altitude preselect bug would randomly jump to a new altitude without us touching the altitude knob. This happened one or two times; and then stopped for 20 minutes or so. On approach into LGA; we were assigned and selected 4000 feet. Right before altitude capture occurred; the altitude preselect jumped to around 50;000 feet or so; and jumped up and down in that range; settling at around 46;000 feet. As such; we went through the assigned altitude since altitude capture did not occur; stopping our descent at about 3500 feet. As we were correcting back to 4000; ATC told us to maintain 4;000. We told them we were having an autopilot issue; and they asked if we needed assistance. After this point; I hand flew / used the 'altitude hold' function. No further incident occurred and no phone number was given to us.My main error was that I looked away from the FMA as we were nearing altitude capture. I had made sure to closely monitor this whenever we were approaching a new altitude after I saw the altitude preselect jumping around on its own; except this time I was looking away for too long and at the wrong time.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported an altitude preselect anomaly led to an altitude overshoot on arrival into LGA.