elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot Flying (PF) and failed to set 250 knots on the VNAV Climb page as well as brief in detail the restriction out of MDW that aircraft are to maintain 250 knots above 10;000 feet until given 'normal speed' by ATC. I was manually flying the aircraft with auto throttles engaged when given a climb to 14;000 feet from our altitude of 3;000 feet. I called for 'VNAV' and the Captain as Pilot Monitoring (PM) engaged VNAV for me and verbalized 'VNAV engaged.' The aircraft accelerated to 250 knots and we climbed away.At 10;000 feet; the commanded airspeed increased above 300 knots in accordance with the normal climb profile and I flew the flight director commanded speed. At approximately 11;200 feet MSL; ATC called and stated; '(Call sign) normal speed.' We acknowledged the call and then realized we had failed to adhere to the 250 knot restriction.In the Crew Briefing I should have either stated my intention of using MCP (Mode Control Panel) airspeed manual settings until given 'normal speed' by ATC; or programmed in 250 knots as a commanded speed in the VNAV Climb Page on the FMC. The Captain could have brought it up in the brief and monitored to speed on climbout. We were both distracted by a departure delay and a complex departure procedure combined with flaps 25; engine bleeds off departure briefing and failed to catch our omission until we were above 10;000 feet.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported exceeding a speed restriction limit during climbout from MDW due to task saturation.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Tower, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Other UAS Structure inspection
Flight phase: Other All
Airspace: Class B CLT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other after mission
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew drone at claim inspection and did not check airspace. I have become over dependent on my manufacture geographical fencing to warn me of any violation in control airspace. Company UAS department discovered violation. My corrective action going forward will be that I shall always include an airspace check as part of my pre-flight planning on all flights. No flights will conducted in control airspace without prior authorization through a LAANC (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability) approved vendor or approved CoA (Certificate of Authorization).




Synopsis: UAV pilot reported a Class B airspace violation.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CRW
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon being cleared for the visual approach for runway 23 I began to descend to the final approach fix STILT at an altitude of 2;400 feet. I was flying a base leg to set up for the interception of the final approach fix at 2;400 feet in complete VMC conditions when we received a 'terrain pull up' message; I immediately applied full power and complied with the GPWS warning. After climbing approximately 300 feet the indications extinguished. I intercepted the localizer and glide slope and continued with a stabilized approach for a normal landing.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported executing the escape maneuver after receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to CRW.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Sports complex lighting too bright on aircraft left during approach to Runway 25L. Flight instruments difficult to see. Making runway difficult to see at night.  We advised ground control taxiing in. We were told we weren't the first to complain.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain experiences very bright lights from a sports complex to the left of Runway 25L centerline at LAS during approach. Ground control indicated to the reporter that he was not the first to complain.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MAF.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C MAF
ATC / advisory: Tower MAF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the date and time listed above; Captain and I pilot monitoring. When we arrived into the KMAF airport both the Captain and I were not familiar with the airport while being vector. When we were in the air; we encountered some clouds. The radar was not painting anything and we encountered some moderate turbulence. We were then clear for a VOR approach but; we were expecting a RNAV approach. When captain turned final he looked too high and call for a go around TOGA FLAP two. When he pressed the TOGA the aircraft pitch up and throttled and advanced very rapidly. The speed went into the barber pole but; we never got an aural alert. We also climbed a few hundred feet. Captain disengaged the auto pilot and to the auto throttle pushed the nose down reduce airspeed. I immediately contacted ATC and advised of the go around and requested vector ATC; which gave us 5;000 feet and vectors back for approach. Later on; Captain did a PA announcement to the passengers that we were doing the go around procedure and we would prepare for landing shortly and advised the flight attendants we landed without incident. During the go around; the flight attendants were calling the cockpit. Meanwhile; captain and I were busy. I was talking with the ATC and captain was flying the aircraft. I advised them prior to the approach that we were going to be in some turbulence and to please be seated.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew anticipated an RNAV approach to MAF but was assigned the VOR RWY 16R. Unfamiliar with either the airport or approach; the crew got behind the aircraft and executed a go around during the unstabilized approach. The aircraft oversped during the go around.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BIL.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: (Pilot was on break at time of incident). The aircraft; while parked on ramp; was turned 90 degrees clockwise as a result of jetblast from a taxiing air carrier aircraft. The aircraft 'hopped' the chocks; coming to rest 90 degrees from its initial position. The incident was reported to me by ramp agent and 2 pilots witnessing the event.Aircraft restricting power usage during pushback/taxi. Alternatively; a pushback to a position that would not put jet blast in danger of damaging other aircraft.




Synopsis: Light Transport pilot reported his unoccupied and parked aircraft was turned 90 degrees and displaced from its chocks by a taxiing air carrier aircraft's jet blast.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IYK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E IYK
Second aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While flying in light ridge lift at ridge height and approximately 500 ft. laterally from the ridge; an F-18E/F popped up over the ridge 150-200 feet above the ridge.  The F-18 was inverted with an energy vector that appeared to be directly aimed at my aircraft.  The F-18 appeared to relax his pull and passed overhead and behind my aircraft at about 200 feet.




Synopsis: Glider pilot reported an NMAC with a military aircraft.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EDDP.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EDDP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; 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: While trying to get the plane ready for an on time departure; the load master left a NOTOC on the pedestal and did not verbally inform me that we had Class 1 materials on board which is required per our General Operations Manual (GOM). We taxied out normally and without incident. We should have informed ATC prior to taxing that we had Class 1 materials on board. In flight while reviewing the paperwork we discovered our error. We advised ATC at our landing airport of our cargo as required.


Second narrative: I was aware there are certain geographical areas we are required to report our HAZMAT on board; especially with regard to Explosives; and I was focusing on the notes on the flight plan and charter alert with regard to the country requirements and special notations on our entry permits. I asked the Captain if there were any countries we had to report our cargo to as a reminder to us all. He said 'no' and we continued our preparation. What I failed to do was look over the airport briefing notes. There were no instructions or reminders on our flight plan or charter alert with reminders or checklists to follow regarding the carriage of Class 1 Explosives. We were never verbally briefed by any member of the Safety or HAZMAT personnel as is required. There needs to be someone briefing the crews before these flights to include any special requirements to be performed by the flight crew. There should be a detailed check list to accompany these special flights to the crew so we don't have to perform an Easter Egg Hunt and hope we cover all reporting and performance parameters from memory.


Synopsis: Cargo flight crew reported departing without notifying ATC of Class 1 HAZMAT on board.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower EGLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Heathrow's runways are not equipped with ICAO-standard runway turnoff (exit) signage. At night or low-vis; we follow the greens - simple! But in daytime there is no signage to tell you that the next turnoff is N9E or N10W; etc. There is terrific signage for taxiing hold points; but no runway edge signage leading you to a specific turnoff. Today's issue was that Tower asked us to plan and make N9E due traffic behind us. Great; no problem! But which one is N9E? My taxi chart does not come up until 80 knots; and do I really want to be looking at my iPad as I'm taking control of the aircraft from the First Officer? If Heathrow had ICAO or US-standard runway turnoff signage; the turnoffs would be much easier to identify as we were 100's of yards away slowing the aircraft. Complicating the issue today is that taxiway H (extension of N9E beyond A taxiway) was closed and barricaded. As we are decelerating looking for N9E; all I could see off my left ahead were barricades; lo and behold they were leaving the exit to A open; and closing H and B taxiways; but from 400 yards away at 100 knots; I thought the approaching turnoff (N9E) was closed. As the largest US operator in Heathrow; perhaps we can have some influence in getting this low-tech solution applied.




Synopsis: 767 Captain reported runway edge signage at EGLL airport is not ICAO standard. During daylight hours taxiways are difficult to identify.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the WRAPS 5 Arrival into SMF when the airport was switched from north flow to south flow. The First Officer changed the arrival with a south flow and 16R. I checked the route and he accepted it. During the arrival; ATC asked if we were going direct to the airport. When I looked down; I noticed the next point was Runway 16R. I told ATC that our route had dropped out of the box and he stated; 'No problem; fly heading 310 for vectors to 16R. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. I am not sure when the navigation route dropped out of the system. The only change I can think to make is increased vigilance of where the LNAV is directing the aircraft; especially during busy portions of the flight.


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


Synopsis: A B737-NG crew flying the SMF WRAPS 5 changed the arrival to a south landing on Runway 16R and after executing the FMS change; all route data except the runway dropped out.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff before preceding A321 was yet airborne; so appears we had minimum legal spacing. Winds were just about calm. At about 200 AGL encountered first of three wake turbulence events; the next two both below approximately 1500 AGL. In fact just before rotation for takeoff I felt vortices try to pull nose left of centerline but was able to correct. The first wake encounter at about 200 ft rolled wings greater than 45 degrees left; then right as I worked to recover level wings. Then we encountered two more instances that required about full aileron deflection from the control yoke to regain level flight. It was one of the worst wake encounters I have experienced in my 28 years at [company].Medium Category aircraft following Medium Category aircraft per definition is OK; in theory anyway. However; I believe more distance is needed following heavier A321 takeoffs. I have a fair amount of flight time in an MD80 so it was not too hard to fly through (although surprising to have three rapid roll events) but I wonder if the same could be said for the next; 'newer on equipment' pilot to be surprised by this type of encounter. Hopefully that pilot will not over control the recovery maneuver/maneuvers.




Synopsis: MD-80 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence from preceding A321 during takeoff from DFW airport resulting in an uncommanded 45 degree bank.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight Load
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was a 737-900 with carpet. The freight/DG was 2022 pounds. We only had 3 bags listed for the flight. Per the new policy; we are suppose to secure the DG with 9 bags of ballast or 450 pounds of mail. There is no real way to secure this amount of DG while following the new policy. We were instructed to load the freight per company policy and followed it.


Second narrative: We were instructed to load 14 feet long of Dangerous Good; Weight 2022 pounds;3 Bags listed for flight and load planner approved 450 pounds of Weight Balancers.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported being instructed to load Hazmat cargo in violation of Hazmat loading secure configuration procedures.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During preflight briefing; the Crew noted that the route in the FMC defaulted to and loaded a Runway for a particular RNAV Departure. The active runway was different. If uncorrected; this could have resulted in a huge problem on departure. I inquired of the FO whether he often sees the runway pre-load to a default runway on our 01 routes. He stated that he thought that about 20% of our routes pre-load a runway. I was shocked to learn this. I believe that this is a bad idea; especially on RNAV routings and even more especially at locations where the wrong runway loaded could result in a major course deviation. It would be fine if the departure was just limited for use from that runway. I realize that our procedures and briefings are designed to catch wrong runway loading errors (which they did in this case) but feel we are setting ourselves up for navigation errors by pre-loading runways in the 01 routes. Chief Pilot on Call was notified of my concerns.




Synopsis: Captain discovered that FMC's are designed to sometimes auto load a runway with a particular RNAV departure.