elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We met the aircraft early on the first leg of the last day of the pairing. There was plenty of time to complete our duties. While the First Officer was conducting the exterior inspection; I (Captain) began to program the FMC for the flight from BOS. The route was a non-standard route and I programmed the route according to procedure. The First Officer returned to the flight deck shortly thereafter and we completed the rest of our preflight duties; briefings; and checklists. The taxi out and initial climb were uneventful. At FL230 and passing HYLND intersection; we requested a right (north) deviation around weather. The controller informed us that our route should have kept us north of the weather. He said we appeared to be heading direct METRO intersection instead of MERTO intersection. MERTO was indeed on our flight plan but METRO was programmed into the FMC. I had transposed the spelling and put the wrong intersection into the FMC during preflight. The controller cleared us direct MERTO intersection and flight plan route. He was very professional regarding the matter and alluded to the fact this had happened to other aircraft. We were fortunate we had just made the turn and the navigational error was minimal and caused no disruption in air traffic flow.I was the one who programmed the FMC. It was/is my responsibility to ensure the flight plan is properly input. As a crew; we should have caught the error. Both of us overlooked the spelling of the intersection in this event. We were not rushed and conducted briefings according to company procedure. I will be more vigilant in ensuring the route is properly programmed into the FMC; paying close attention to those intersections with similar spellings. I will also continue to encourage my co-workers to check my work and review the flight plan programmed into the FMC--regardless of who made the inputs.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain experienced a track deviation as a result of miss programing the FMC with METRO instead of MERTO. The two waypoints are several hundred miles apart and not in line.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure we realized that all of the flight director vertical modes; the altitude selector and the heading modes were inoperative. We departed the terminal area while troubleshooting the issue. We attempted to contact Dispatch and Maintenance via Commercial Radio but had a very difficult time with these communications (primarily due to static and not being able to hear each other). We then determined the functions did work for the First Officers side. Maintenance did not understand the issue and talked about MELing the autopilot. Since the flight director functions were inoperative for the Captain's side; we decided to return to our departure airport. On the return we had a pack overload with a burning smell. We performed the QRH items and the smell immediately went away. We continued to the airport and made an uneventful landing and returned to the gate.Everytime I have tried to contact the company via Commercial Radio; communication is horrible at best. Dial access was a much better means of communication.




Synopsis: An E145 flight crew opted to return to their departure airport following the failure of several autoflight related systems. While doing so they suffered a pack overload condition which emitted a burning smell but succombed to appropriate QRH measures.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I arrived at the gate 30 minutes prior to departure; and was going through my security and equipment checks. Op sup asked if we were ready; and I said no; I was still doing my checks. He said there were a number of wheelchairs. I told him I understood; but had to finish my check first. Before I was finished; I look up; and another agent had brought down wheelchair passengers. He said he was told we were ready. Operations supervisors are pressuring Flight Attendants and Operations Agents to board before having time to complete a thorough security and equipment check. Lining up pre boards in the jetway is starting the boarding process before ensuring the aircraft is ready to go. Ops supervisors need to be aware of what is in their manual. Coordinated with the A FA; before deciding to board. I understand the need for on time performance; but security checks are in place for a reason.




Synopsis: B737-800 Flight Attendant reported supervisors are pressuring flight attendants to board the aircraft before completing their pre-boarding SOPs.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CRW
ATC / advisory: Tower CRW
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a left downwind for the visual approach (Runway 23) into CRW; we received a GPWS Pullup alert. The lowest noted AGL altitude was around 1;100 feet during the approach. We were aware of the mountainous terrain; the Captain selected the FAF attitude in the altitude sector once we were cleared for the visual. Sloping terrain set off the GPWS alert as we descended roughly 1;000 FPM.Perhaps a note in company pages would be a good way to remind crews who are on the visual.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a GPWS 'Pull up' alert on a visual approach to CRW Runway 23.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Ground RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxied off runway 16L at Lima. Was cleared to taxi to the gate via Alpha. After crossing 16R the signage on the airport made me believe the first right turn would have been Alpha. Ground called and said I was on Bravo and to continue to the gate via Bravo now. No other discussion was had with ground. I should have verified on my airport diagram that in fact I should have crossed the first taxiway to get to Alpha taxiway.


Second narrative: After crossing 16R for taxi at L we were cleared A taxiway to ramp; Captain proceeded onto B by mistake and ATC advised immediately and cleared to continue B taxi to ramp.Better familiarization with taxi diagrams.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported the taxiway signage at RNO airport was confusing and contributed to a taxiway incursion.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on my 4th leg in a ferry flight; I had a sudden consecutive RPM drop; I applied carb heat with full power; didn't help much; start to lose altitude slowly over the water; I went direct to the nearest airport and contacted the tower; at the beginning it seemed to me I will land in the water so I put my ELT manually ON; by the time I reached there they cleared me to land Runway XX; I was able to make it to the runway; after landing there was a lot of oil leak on the nose wheel; struts and all over the belly.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an engine failure caused an emergency landing at the destination airport.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We went around at 900 AGL due to improper configuration on an autoland.  We were doing an Autoland approach and the system did not arm at GS intercept on the practice CAT III.  PM was watching outside for traffic on a parallel approach. As the flying pilot I got totally sucked into my display and did [not] configure in time for a stabilized approach and decided at 900 AGL to initiate [a] go-around. Go-around was uneventful.Having not flown a lot in the last couple months I allowed myself to get distracted with the display and lost overall situational awareness in regards to proper aircraft configuration.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported conducting a go-around due to improper aircraft configuration and cited loss of situational awareness as a contributing factor.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RUT.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF RUT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The incident occurred just after landing on runway 1 at Rutland; VT (RUT). We were on the runway and heard on UNICOM that an aircraft was going to back taxi on runway 19. The pilot under instruction of our PA28 decided that we should clear the runway as soon [as] possible on what he observed to be a taxiway on the left side of the runway. After the turn the pilot and copilot noticed signage that indicated the taxiway was not a taxiway. By the time the pilot noticed the signage it was too late to turn around and we proceeded down the roadway to find an area where there was adequate room to make a 180 degree turn to return to the runway. In the process of finding room to turn around; the left wing tip hit an airport sign on the side the roadway. At this time the pilot and copilot decided to shut down the aircraft engine and request help from the airport management. Assistance was provided to turn the aircraft around and position the aircraft so that it could be taxied to the mechanic's shop via the runway where minor repairs were made to the port navigation lights. The airport sign damage was minor according to the airport management.RECOMMENDATIONS:The airport signage; designating the roadway as not a taxiway; is parallel to and facing the runway and difficult to see until after aircraft has made the turn. After this turn made the aircraft does not have room on the roadway to turn around back to runway. It is recommended that signage be placed on both sides of the roadway perpendicular to the runway.


Second narrative: The roadway looks too much like a taxiway until right up on it. When rolling out from landing it looks too inviting with its flared pavement at the runway edge and its width.


Synopsis: PA28 instructor pilot and student reported turning off Runway 1 at RUT and onto a poorly marked road thinking it was a taxiway.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were operating a B767 with MEL 21-XX-XX-XX for an inoperative left pack auto control mode. The MEL says that 'One or both may be inoperative provided associated Standby Mode operates normally.' So we were running the pack in standby N in accordance with the MEL. Later during our preflight we found out that we were going to be operating under supplemental Dry Ice procedures. While completing the Dry Ice Supplemental QRH procedure; we might have misinterpreted the the procedure and we failed to realize that maybe we were supposed have the Left Pack Control Selector in AUTO. Which we would not have been able to do because of the MEL. We complied with the rest of the QRH procedure and the flight was uneventful. We were later contacted by the next crew that took the airplane and they told us that we may have missed something between the MEL and Dry Ice Supplemental QRH procedure. This event happened because we had an MEL that might have kept us from properly applying the Dry Ice Supplemental QRH Procedure and we failed to realize that while completing the QRH procedure.We could have been more methodical while completing the QRH procedure; and then maybe we would have had additional questions about the relationship between the MEL and QRH procedure. Also a note in the MEL about not being able to do Dry Ice Supplemental Procedures would help.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported inadvertently failed to comply with the Dry Ice handling requirements while transporting Dry Ice. Flight continued to destination safely.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were cleared via the Charlotte one departure; PITTY transition and departing 18C.  We briefed the departure which showed the turn before the CLT VOR and the FMS agreed with that.  We were to fly a 183 heading until 1.6 DME then turn to a 200 heading.  We departed and the FMS had us turn at 600 feet this seemed too soon; but I looked at the departure and the turn was definitely depicted before the VOR.  We were switched to departure and I told them that we were on a 200 heading.  They said nothing so I thought that the turn was done correctly.  Once on the ground we looked at this again and both agreed that the turn seemed early but it was depicted as before the VOR.  The next day I was stilled puzzled by this so I called a manager.  He agreed that it seemed the turn should be before the VOR but seemed confusing so he looked into the matter.  Later he sent an email that said the turn should be 1.6 miles after the CLT VOR.  This means that we turned too soon.We did brief the departure; but maybe we should have used our experience on other departures and questioned why this turn was before the VOR not after the VOR as the other departures depict.  I think the Charlotte One departure is depicted in a confusing way; but I will be more vigilant in the future.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reports confusion departing CLT on the CLT1 departure; with the chart depicting a turn at 1.6 DME north of the VOR and the text indicating a turn to 200 degrees 1.6 DME south when departing Runway 18C.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHN.ARTCC, HI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHN
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; inbound to HNL airport; descending to 10000; direct the fix BAMBO. Aircraft approaching BAMBO; and HNL approach calls up and says 'I don't see Aircraft X; keep him coming.' That is great; except; if HNL APCH does not have radar coverage 5-10 miles from their boundary; on a HEAVILY traveled route; and the standard operating procedure is to descend the aircraft to ten thousand feet; then there is something wrong with the procedure!Have aircraft descend to 12000 (or cross BAMBO AT 12000 for RWY 22 and RWY 26 operations)! Then HNL APCH could descend aircraft under their control at their discretion. EASY! SIMPLE! SAFE! Fix this problem! Having Honolulu center call for the hand off or the HNL approach to call and say keep him coming I don't have radar is a problem when either sector 3 is busy or Honolulu approach is busy! Even though we may or may not have FUSION turned back on again; if FUSION goes out; our backup will still have the problem! There will be a runway 8L widening project that will last for at least a year starting soon; with more flow control; and busier and different flows in Honolulu Approaches airspace; lets fix this problem so it does not add to the complexity!




Synopsis: ZHN ARTCC Controller reported HCF Approach is unable to see aircraft inbound while at 10000 ft near the hand off fix BAMBO.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 1T8.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise flight at 2;200 MSL I experienced an engine failure resulting in a forced landing on a golf course. No injuries occurred with damage to the nose gear and a resultant prop strike with engine wind milling. Initial investigation determined that the fuel selector was in the left tip tank position (17Gal) and the left tip tank was empty. I agree with this finding. During my preflight my intention was to burn out of the left main tank (25Gal); but I misidentified which tank was selected resulting in fuel starvation leading to the forced landing.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper PA32 made an off-field landing following loss of engine power. It was later determined that the fuel system was feeding from an empty fuel tank.