elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RYY.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D RYY
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80; Tower RYY
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was assigned a trip as the Captain on a flight to RYY. The weather was marginal IMC; due to ground fog. The forecast for arrival was to be VMC. There was no NOTAMs for the flight. 30 min out; my first officer received the ATIS from the airport and the weather was improving to VMC; but the winds were calm; so ground fog was still in the area and they were advertising the RNAV/GPS 9. My FO (First Officer) advised me that there were issues with the FMS system in the past about it dropping GPS/RNAV approach's at the final app fix. Since the winds were calm; I asked him to ask the controllers that we would like the ILS 27 approach. The controller told us that the approach was not available. Since the weather was improving and I had ground contact; we as a crew discussed flying the RNAV/GPS 9 approach until the FMS or weather was an issue then we would go missed. Inbound on the approach; I had ground contact and the visibility was more than 3 miles. Turning onto final; I had the airport in sight and we both agreed to continue with the approach; not seeing [any] problems. Approx. 1 mile from the end of the rwy; with the rwy in sight; the tower controller told us to check altitude. We advised him that we had the rwy in sight. Taxiing in; we switched to ground control freq.; and I asked when was the ILS 27 was NOTAM'd out of service. He said it wasn't; he just didn't want to give it to us.




Synopsis: Corporate turbojet Captain reported issues with Approach Control while landing in marginal VFR conditions.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot was cleared direct to the ROBER intersection (17 NM SW of CCC) and issued a crossing restriction 15 NM NE of ROBER at 12;000 and 250 KTS. The pilot read back was complete and correct. The PARCH1 STAR shows an expected altitude of ROBER at 9;000. The pilot descended thru 12;000. At 11;500 was re-cleared to maintain 12;000. The pilot stated the he 'needed to be ROBER at 9;000 feet.'Retrain flight crews or change STAR expected altitudes to clear show that they are not assigned; but expected; altitudes. This is a by-product of DESCEND VIA clearances. Maybe all STARs should be named in a way that separates those with a DESCEND VIA and those without; i.e. STARs that include a DESCEND VIA should be changed from STARs to PDTARs (Profile Descent Terminal Arrival Routes).


Second narrative: We were assigned by BOS Center to cross CCC at 12;000 and 250 KTS. We were subsequently cleared direct ROBER and cross it at 9;000 and to cross abeam CCC at 12;000 and 250KTS.I was the Pilot Flying and crossed abeam CCC at the assigned restrictions; I then started down to 9;000 ft. At about 11;200 ft. ATC queried us about our altitude and later said he did not clear us to cross ROBER at 9;000 but to EXPECT to cross at that altitude. We replied that we heard to CROSS at 9;000 and then was instructed to climb back to 12;000. All three of us believe we heard ATC say to Cross ROBER at 9;000. No traffic conflicts were observed or reported.


Synopsis: B767-300 Flight Crew reports being cleared to pass abeam CCC at 12000 feet and 250 knots and cross ROBER at 9000 feet. The ZBW Controller involved believes the clearance was to expect ROBER at 9000 feet and sends the crew back up to 12000 feet.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAV.Airport, GA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Pressurization Outflow Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff. Returned to gate. Outflow valves were closed shut. Parked at gate; could not open doors or windows. Aircraft had to depressurize on its own. The manual dump for pressurization did not work. I have always thought that I could get out of an aircraft; but this was not the case. We need to be trained on situations like this. Because it can occur; but there was no recourse. Please address this situation as I feel that this was a major malfunction of procedures and the utmost safety concern. I am not sure how long it actually took before we could open the door; but it seemed like at least fifteen minutes. All you need to do is say 'what if'; and go over all scenarios possible.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Flight Attendant reported that after returning to the gate she was unable to open aircraft doors because the manual pressurization dump did not work.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: WSI through the company continues to advise the flight crews with turbulence FPG's (Flight Plan Guidance) and Sigmets with fixes that cannot be determined accurately and expeditiously; i.e. 160NNE HEKAB. If WiFi is available (many times it is not) the WSI FPG's can be displayed on the App using the company iPad. Without this I must ask the Dispatcher to determine where along our route these turbulence areas are located; this takes unnecessary time and effort.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported difficulty plotting company-provided areas of turbulence when the aircraft WiFi is unavailable.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SWF.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Takeoff warning sounded on takeoff roll. Very low speed Reject; taxied back for takeoff after realizing we had not configured for takeoff or ran the before takeoff checklist.Extreme fatigue. I was scheduled for a 37 hour layover. That would have helped recover from prior sleep deprivation. Instead; crew scheduling revised my pairing after I showed at the jet in San Diego. Instead of one leg to a long layover; they hub turned me into two legs. I had less than an hour at first stop. No time for a nap; food etc. Felt ok in bound; but was mildly fatigued at pushback for second leg. Was extremely fatigued upon arrival with one more leg to go. Stop crew scheduling from revisions of this nature. Just because it's 'legal' doesn't make it safe. Crew scheduling should schedule with safety in mind first; and system reliability second. 'Smart' scheduling would error on the side of safety and not fall into the 'it's legal therefore it's safe' mentality that seems to prevail currently. On the personal side; I should have called in fatigued in at the first stop. In the future I will call in fatigued when faced with similar circumstances.




Synopsis: Crew rejected the takeoff at low speed when the takeoff warning horn activated. Pilot attributes the flight crew's failure to configure the aircraft correctly and complete the Before Takeoff Checklist to fatigue due to scheduling changes.
Date: 201912
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DAL
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Dallas Approach gave us descend to 2;400 feet on a 70 degree heading. Once we had the field in sight he cleared us the visual approach to 31L. I began to descend to 2;200 feet the FAF crossing altitude. When we contacted Tower he asked us to climb to 2;500 feet as we were below minimum vectoring altitude. This was confusing as we intercepted the glideslope at that point and landed normally. The Tower kept thanking us for our cooperation. At least three times. We re-read the SIP and charts and cannot find any note on the 2;500 feet MVA. 2;500 feet would have put us high at the glideslope intercept and caused an unstable approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported confusion when on a Visual Approach above the FAF altitude ATC asked them to climb to 2;500 feet for the Minimum vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 170
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cylinder Head
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing ZZZ1 VFR at 1200 MSL across the [the water] staying clear of the Class B airspace and navigating in the VFR corridor. Then heading toward ZZZ Check point staying clear of the Class D airspace. When heading toward the checkpoint following the VFR map on my Fore flight IPAD that's when my attention was detracted just inside the shoreline to a slight vibration of the engine. As I did my emergency checklist (checking fuel; mags; oil pressure) the engine continue to get more severe as we proceeded? Then it happen; a loud bang and engine sounded like it was coming apart. My first reaction to the extreme vibration was I thought a cylinder was coming apart. I glance outside to see my landing options and I was right over downtown. Freeway was not an option because of the heavy traffic and a high-density resident and business area; my next option was to declare an emergency into ZZZ; which in turn the tower gave me priority. With a high level of pucker factor I once again tried to figure what was the problem. Flying the airplane was my first priority and getting down safely. I did not bust the Class D airspace intentionally but for survival. Upon reaching the ground and having the power to the parking area and opening the cowling; it was discovered a spark plug had blow out the left rear cylinder. The aircraft has a low time engine and just had the annual done two weeks prior and met all torque requirements.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot describes an engine problem and successful diversion to the closest airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; climbing through FL280; experienced a complete electrical failure on the left side; then continued AC power Interruptions; with loss of Captain's instruments; Auto Throttles; and Auto Pilot. After several seconds; some of the left side systems began to 'come back' and got Generator Fail light. We notified ATC and were given FL300 to level off. We ran the checklist; and were unable to get the generator to come back on line. We descended to FL280 in order to start the APU. In addition; we got a Center Fuel Pressure Low light. We continued to follow the checklist; starting the APU and disconnecting the Left CSD. Due to the fact we had the center fuel pressure low lights; still very close to ZZZ and were flying into areas of Thunderstorm activity in ZZZ1; at night; we decided to [advise ATC] and return to ZZZ. We returned to ZZZ and landed at 134;000 lbs; pulled off the active runway into a taxi area where the emergency vehicles could drive around the aircraft and inspect the tires and wheels for overheating. Temperature never got above 170 degrees while on taxiway and 200 after parking.




Synopsis: MD83 Captain reported a failure of the CSD drive after takeoff thereby losing several electrical components.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a walk around; per 1 service.  Came upon #3 main landing gear tire.  Saw wear that showed tiny spots of chord.  Tire change.  Utilized my IPAD to acquire the IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog) and MM (Maintenance Manual) effective for Aircraft X.  I then proceeded to gather the tools and equipment and upon arriving at the tire rack; I read the sign posted for a 737-XXX carbon tire.  There at the rack; I noticed that there were 2 tires of which one was secured by a chain link.  I decided to take the other serviceable tire which was not chain linked but nevertheless was under the rack labeling of a -XXX and then I proceeded to go to aircraft and begin my LOTO (Lock Out Tag Out) procedures to include installing of gear pins.  I completed the tire replacement with some assistance from one of my fellow AMTs (Aviation Maintenance Technicians) and completed all computer transactions as necessary and also issued the AWR (Airworthiness Release).  It's obvious that I need to be extra careful and be more attentive in regards to taking the necessary time to actual confirm the correct part without being rushed and pressured which may lead to other unfortunate events.  In this event; I happened to retrieve the tire I thought that I needed but yet it wasn't.




Synopsis: Aviation Maintenance Technician installed incorrect tire on 737.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X with work order # after inspection of the main and standby pitot static system drains. Static line drain S3 was found full of water. This was informed to the crew chief at the time. At the time there was no personnel trained (no one in the shop had the knowledge to use testing equipment) to perform the task. I state to crew chief that this task must be performed but he told me that he will take full responsibility for the aircraft and sign out the work card and release the aircraft without the task being performed. I consider this action taken by the crew chief unsafe by going against Aircraft Maintenance Manuals and [carrier] supplements.




Synopsis: Technician reported that the pitot static system drain line required removal of contamination per policy. However; no one was trained to accomplish task.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Before arrival ATIS wind XXXXXGXX; pilots briefed Runway X and executed ILS X; during final Tower reported wind changed to YYYYYGYY; pilot went around and request visual [Runway] XX. Went around second time due to unstabilized approach. Performed visual XX again; during right base to final turn; pilot looking out for the runway; did not maintain speed and stick shaker activated; then performed go-around. Landed Runway XY without further issue.Pilot flying first flight in 83 days; not proficient on the flying skill. First time flying to ZZZ; unfamiliar airport. And after the second go-around; getting stressful; terrain around the airport making the approach more stressful; and right traffic not easy to look at the runway.Will focus on flying the airplane carefully and monitor the speed constantly during fly.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they executed three go-arounds before successfully landing on the fourth attempt. Captain cited gusty conditions; lack of recent flying and unfamiliarity with airport as contributing factors.