elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: For the third time in the last two or so months we were assigned Runway 17L as the landing Runway by Approach. For the third time I 'refused' the runway assignment. While the tables tell us a 425;000 lbs [heavy air carrier] CAN land on that runway I see no reason to do so while a tiny jet at what; maybe 60;000 lbs is occupying the longer runway. The question simply is not CAN we do it but WHY DO WE DO IT? Is there a better way?According to ATC the runways get assigned by 'the computer.' Maybe 'the computer' needs to be educated or overruled. If you cannot accommodate international arrivals on the west side give heavy aircraft longer runways than you give regional jets. It's simply the smart thing to do. Longer runways decrease wear on equipment; lessen failure rates and allow crews that have been flying for 10-16 hours a greater safety margin.




Synopsis: Heavy aircraft First Officer reported that ATC computer assigns shorter runways for bigger aircraft.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had complete electrical failure in the aircraft outside Class D for ZZZ. I followed procedures by climbing to 500 FT above pattern altitude of 800 FT AGL. I entered Class D of ZZZ at 1;300 FT MSL squawking 7600 on the transponder. I approached over the Tower at 1;300 FT MSL rocking my wings waiting for the light gun signal. The Tower Controller did not see or hear me passing over the top and did not proceed with the light signals. I circled over the top for two more times. I did not get light signal from the Tower yet. On the fourth time around; I cleared the final approach path for the active runway according to the last ATIS information. I landed and cleared the runway at the end. I stopped aircraft after clearing the runway waiting for the light signals from the Tower for taxi clearance. No light signals from the tower were provided. I proceeded to taxi to the parking area. I held short enroute to the parking for Runway XXL. No light signals were provided by the Tower. I proceeded taxiing for hold-short line. I got red light stop taxi from the Control Tower this time. I stopped and held short. After a while; I got flashing green taxi light from the Control Tower. I proceeded to taxi and crossed runway enroute to parking. I explained the situation to the Control Tower personnel and the airport operation after parking and engine shut-down.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a complete electrical failure; stating he then followed proper procedures for airspace entry and landing but Tower apparently did not notice him until after he landed.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on a first officer flown visual approach to 16 left at DEN; there was another aircraft on approach to 16 right at the same time. Somewhere around 2500 AGL we got an Resolution Advisory (RA) to climb due to conflict. We had the other aircraft in sight and decided that climbing would make the situation more unsafe because it was slightly behind and higher than us. We elected to continue the approach because climbing was more unsafe than staying on the glidepath and breaking out to the left would send us across the approach corridor for the other runways. We got the RA 3 times total while flying down final. Each time it said to climb and each time the other aircraft was slightly behind and higher than ours. The aircraft was then landed on 16 left uneventfully.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer; pilot flying; for a visual approach to Runway 16L at DEN; experienced repeated TCAS RA's with respect to another aircraft flying a visual approach to 16R slight above and behind them.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium UAS (At or above 55 lbs and less than 1320 lbs)
Operator: Government
Operating under: Public Aircraft Operations (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Surveying / Mapping (UAS)
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR ZZZ
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While level at altitude we experienced wind shear the aircraft dropped 2;300 ft.We tried to communicate the radio did not work. We got a back up radio. Received a call and made the launch recovery zone back hot.Recovered altitude and continued the mission. We also record a link hit at the same time.


Second narrative: Due to what we believe to be strong wind shear we were unable to maintain our altitude above 10; 000 feet. We began troubleshooting and attempted to communicate; but were unable to get through on our radios due to malfunction and had to grab a backup handheld. By this point we had descended roughly 2;500 feet when we established communication; at which point we made the mission hot again. We were then able to establish a climb and continue our mission.


Synopsis: UAS encountered wind shear and was unable to maintain altitude. Flight crew was able to regain control of the UAS and return to previous altitude.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Fog; Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While shooting the ILS to 26R; I had an autopilot malfunction. This malfunction caused us to dramatically turn left and right and then oscillate up and down. I immediately disengaged the auto pilot and declared missed at that point so we could regain situational awareness. At that point; ATC asked the problem and we stated we were on the missed and would like to attempt the approach again. The second time was a success and I was given a phone number to call Tower when I shut down. I called the Tower and told them what happened and that I was calling my Maintenance Department to get the autopilot fixed. I wrote the autopilot up and it is scheduled to be repaired tomorrow.




Synopsis: A C-208B autopilot malfunctioned on a coupled ILS so the pilot disconnected it; executed a go around and returned to land. ATC inquired about the event and was told maintenance action would follow.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Planned flight as normal; no limiting MELs were attached to the aircraft at any point during planning.  I received a call from the crew at asking for clarification that MEL XX-XX-X-1 meant that center tank fuel was unusable; I confirmed this was the case; that this MEL means that both center pumps are INOP and that any fuel in the center is trapped; I thought it was a generic question and didn't question the MEL on this specific flight.  I was advised by Dispatcher X that he believed the flight departed below minimum fuel; I brought up the [planning] and the fuel I had planned it with was below the level at which fuel is added to the center tank; this immediately raised flags and I attempted to contact ZZZ Tower to stop the aircraft from taking off; however they said clearance had already been given and the aircraft was rolling.  I believe the aircraft departed with approx 24.7 usable fuel with a MIN TAKEOFF fuel of 27.0.  After takeoff and at a safe altitude; I ACARSed the crew asking them to confirm the fuel available in their main tanks only; I determined this fuel was not sufficient to make it to RFD and advised the dispatch lead.  The crew agreed that a tech stop was in the best interest of safety and it was decided that ZZZ1 was a suitable gateway for this; the flight was diverted to ZZZ1 to add fuel.  Unfortunately; at no point during the pre-planning or planning stage of this flight; did I receive a call from Maintenance Control advising the MEL was being added; nor did the crew request an amended release before blockout advising that the MEL was not on their paperwork and thus not considered for the flight.  The call was a routine call in which I thought the crew was just asking for interpretation of a MEL.I would suggest to Maintenance Control that they advise all dispatchers that have that tail assigned of any MELs being added; unfortunately we don't always have the aircraft on its previous leg and thus when they advise one dispatcher of an MEL being added; the next dispatcher does not receive this information.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that a flight departed without the minimum required fuel due to a miscommunication about an MEL.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Starting the day early and commuting to work with a fairly long drive. I felt fine for reporting for duty and felt fine to complete the rest of the day's flights. Even though I had not slept very good the last few nights before. Due to feeling sick; because of a common cold; and having other issues on my current thoughts. Before departure I signed the flight release; and signed the fit for duty part of the release in the FMS. While on the way to our destination I had trouble staying alert and kept dosing off for very short intervals. While on the early part of the descent phase; my ability to stay alert and dosing off became somewhat more difficult. The First Officer who I was flying with; noticed my troubles; and told me he would like to take over as pilot flying. So we wouldn't have a conflict while flying; and while in a critical phase of flight. I decided to just let him take the aircraft from there. At this time; I started to think about after arriving calling in fatigued. Upon landing; after completing the last of the checklist; before I had a chance to discuss the matter with my First Officer he immediately left the aircraft and notified the company of what happened.After feeling ill; having several other issues on your mind over a period of days; and not sleeping well over that particular time period; It would be a good idea to give yourself some extra sleep. Maybe something like an extra couple of hours on top of the recommended eight hours.


Second narrative: I was pilot monitoring during the flight and multiple times I looked over and saw the captain sleeping. While on the arrival at 6;000 feet; I saw the captain sleeping again. I woke him and notified him that I was taking the controls for the rest of the flight. We did not violate any FAR's or deviate from ATC instructions and landed safely.


Synopsis: During cruise flight and while flying the RNAV arrival; a fatigued; recently ill Captain dozed off several times. The First Officer aggressively took control of the aircraft and landed. The Captain removed himself from the next flight.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZBPE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing out of Beijing on the LADIX 8E departure off Runway 01; I checked in with the Departure Controller and requested relief from the speed and altitude restrictions published in the departure. The controller replied 'Climb unrestricted' and for clarification I requested a climb speed of 280 knots. ATC denied the request; citing 'traffic' and told us to maintain 250 KTS until 5;700 meters (18;700 feet.)We decided to leave the flaps at 1 and continue climb at the requested 250 knots. Climbing out of 10;000 feet I again requested higher speed and we were denied; controller repeated the clearance to maintain 250 KTS until 5;700 meters. The working relief pilot reminded us that max flap operating limit was 20;000 feet. Seeing no legal or operational limit to restrict us; we complied; but I did once again request a higher speed and we were again denied.At 5;700 meters the Captain lower the nose a bit; accelerated to the flap 0 tick; and called for flaps up. As the flaps were retracting; or perhaps just as they reached the up position; we weren't sure; we got a stick shaker. Captain pushed forward gently on the yoke and the stick shaker stopped immediately and we continued climb without incident. We later learned that a flight attendant in the back hit her head during the maneuver and had a headache; but she did not request MedLink and later said she felt better; although she did have a sore neck.We debriefed the event and all agreed that at no time were we illegal or in violation of any FAR; aircraft limit or SOP. But the take away is that we have not consistently trained for or flown the aircraft at high altitudes with flaps extended and the aircraft did not perform as we anticipated.


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


Synopsis: After departure with heavy takeoff weight; ATC limited aircraft's speed to below minimum flaps up configuration. Crew kept flaps at position 1 until higher altitudes. Crew experienced brief stick shaker when retracting flaps near flaps zero speed at higher altitudes.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At no point during my eight hour shift did I receive a lunch break. I approached the Supervisor and I was told there was nothing they could do. This situation has happened on a daily basis were I am receiving no lunch during my shift. This is causing me to feel sick due to the consecutive days where I am receiving no lunch during my shift. Another issue I am dealing with is being assigned flights before my start time. Every day I deal with this issue with no resolution. I genuinely feel something needs to be done about the management and the way things are being run around here. It is not fair to me or any employee who works here.


Second narrative: Started work at [time] first flight came at [time] and was outside with back to back flights until [time] with no breaks. Did 5 turns. I let the Supervisor know that me and my crew needed a lunch but was not given to us. This is causing us not to be able to work effectively due to fatigue. This has been going on for the whole entire week without a resolution. I've talked to multiple Supervisors and no one seems to be able to help. Me and my crew can't work properly or effectively if we are tired; that's how mistakes happen and people get injured. We have been asking for something we deserve and it seems like upper management doesn't care or takes us for granted. Their solution is to pay us for lunch or to leave early but that doesn't help us any when we are outside all day. If something were to happen and something gets damaged we have to answer for it so all I ask for is to get a lunch anywhere in our 8 hour shift.


Synopsis: Ramp Crew reported that they were not allowed to take a lunch break during their entire 8 hour shift.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While I was preflighting the cockpit; the fueler advised me we were losing fuel [overboard]. I had told him that we were going to top off and he had already completed the float check. Fueling had already been stopped and clean up began. We were pulled out of and positioned away from the spill; two pools of fuel both approximately six feet in diameter. The aircraft had already stopped the fueling process and the fueler was putting away his equipment when the aircraft started to eject fuel. On the next leg the float check was completed again with no anomalies.




Synopsis: A CE-750 suffered a fuel spill following a 'top off' fueling.
Date: 201711
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: New policy for IAH TRACON; ALL arrivals are to be treated as IFR (even on clear days) and expect a 30 nm downwind leg prior to turning final. Twice today we got these extended finals. Coming from the west and landing west (eastern downwind leg); not knowing this as a new policy we flew at 3000 ft; 210 KIAS for some 100 +/- extra miles; burning an estimated additional 2500 lbs. of fuel for the endeavor. As a result we were at min fuel for the first landing (not declared as we had been visual of the airport for 30+ mins) and near the same for the second landing (clear skies both events; 1st landing 8-10 nm behind interval and 2nd landing 17 nm behind interval!) This new policy needs to be communicated to crews and dispatchers to fuel plan accordingly!




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a new TRACON procedure that resulted in increased fuel burn and minimum fuel status on multiple flights.