elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to 2000 ft. on the lateral path of Runway XX. I was at 210 kts. and in level change descending to 2000 ft. We called the runway and were cleared visual approach for Runway XX around ZZZZZ. I thought VNAV was engaged and asked for touch down elevation. I did not verify that VNAV was engaged. I asked for flaps 1 and flaps 5 to slow down. I was inadvertently in level change and the aircraft pitched nose down to maintain the 210 kts. I disconnected the autopilot and leveled the aircraft. During the repair; ATC called low altitude alert. We acknowledged that we were correcting and continued the landing normally.


Second narrative: Aircraft automation was selected with LNAV and level change while descending to 2000 ft. Subsequently cleared visual approach and PF (Pilot Flying) started configuring to slow and asked to set touchdown elevation in the altitude window. PF and PM (Pilot Monitoring) didn't verify appropriate vertical mode for phase of flight and aircraft pitched for speed on pitch descent below glidepath. PF disconnected automation and corrected while PM communicated altitude correction to Tower.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported receiving ATC low altitude alert during visual approach. Excursion from altitude was due to flight crew failure to verify vertical VNAV mode selected.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: ; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Landing on CMH Runway 28L without landing clearance. On approach we were being vectored for the ILS 28L in VMC conditions. CMH Approach Control was issuing headings and various speed reductions before final approach fix. The last ATC communications to us were 'cleared for ILS 28L approach.' We flew the approach uneventfully and upon landing; and exiting the runway at A7 high speed; queried ATC if we should contact Ground Control. The Controller on frequency stated that we were transmitting on Approach frequency. This is when we realized that we did not/were never instructed to contact Tower Controller and we had just landed without landing clearance. We contacted Ground Controller and he gave us a vague clearance to taxi to the ramp. Due to multiple taxiway closures in the vicinity of our taxi route we confirmed our taxi clearance and proceeded to ramp uneventfully. Once on the ramp and parked we had a short conversation with Ground Controller about the incident and they did not seem too concerned about it. Some contributing factors that may have led to this event. We were on duty 6 hours prior to nighttime departure. As [a] crew we discussed after landing how distracting the [Runway] 28L new style bright LED runway and approach lights were. Also infrequent radio transmissions during final approach phase of flight created a sense of security; as a crew we should have been more vigilant and proactive in receiving landing clearance. ATC could be more proactive in assuring pilots contact appropriate controller/frequency.


Second narrative: I told Ground that we were never handed off to the Tower from Approach and he responded with 'yes I know; we had you the whole time; its ok.' I readback our taxi clearance back and we proceeded to the ramp. The Controller seemed to be OK with it since it was VMC and [there was] no other traffic in the area or on the ground.


Synopsis: A fatigued flight crew landed at CMH during late night operations without clearance. Fatigue and distractions including bright LED approach lights and a lull due to the lack of frequency activity.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 'Nose A/G DISAGREE' status message appeared after takeoff. Climbing out; we consulted the QRH. Concerned that this switch controls 'stall warning and portions of the caution and warning system'; we discussed our problem with this airport's Maintenance and Maintenance Control. They advised us to return to the departure airport and we concurred. Dispatch was notified of our return and an emergency was declared with ATC. We landed overweight; normal touchdown; long rollout; minimal braking with Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters standing by to monitor brake temps (all OK). Arriving at gate; Maintenance advised us that the nose gear air/ground switch was broken and removed the aircraft from service.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: After takeoff a B757 EICAS alerted NOSE A/G DISAGREE so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We put gear handle down and at first did not get 3 green lights; only the 2 main wheels. Then we recycled gear and saw 3 green lights; although the nose wheel light was dimmer than other 2. We did a low approach and Tower confirmed twice that gear was down so we landed on the second pass. The nose gear collapsed on the landing roll.


Second narrative: [Narative #2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A BE76 nose gear collapsed on landing after initially failing to indicate down but after cycling indicated safe and with Tower-observed report of the gear down.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After completing our initial climb to 2;000 FT on the OAK6 departure from OAK we were cleared an unrestricted climb to 15;000 FT. We were in a 4;000 FPM climb and advised by NORCAL Departure to make a left turn to 180 degrees. During that climb; at 7;800 FT and climbing fast I was asked to level off at 8;000 FT which we were unable to do in a timely manner due to our climb rate. As I lowered the nose and reduced power and the climb; we encountered an RA. At the same time NORCAL advised us to make an immediate left turn to 140 degrees. My training kicked in and I followed the commands from the TCAS and flew the aircraft abruptly into the commanded guidance bars; disregarding the turn to 140 degrees. Just as I was pitching the nose abruptly over to comply with the RA; I saw a single engine aircraft in a very steep left turn at my altitude and within 500 FT of my aircraft. Once I had the traffic in sight; I eased off the TCAS RA commands and flew the aircraft away maintaining visual contact with the single engine plane. We advised NORCAL of the RA immediately and had no response. Nothing was said after the incident. The problem I have here is that NORCAL had both of us on radar and turned me (the jet aircraft) into the oncoming light aircraft. This seems to be an issue that is getting worse and needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: A business jet departed OAK on the OAK 6 and during a high climb rate ascent was unable to level off after an amended climb clearance so the pilot took evasive to avoid the near miss traffic also under ATC control.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Generator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We initiated a maximum power takeoff due to deicing. With the combination of the cold weather and a light aircraft; the acceleration rate was noticeably greater than normal. Just as I completed setting the takeoff thrust; we both heard a click and immediately multiple Master Caution lights illuminated including 'Hyd' and 'Anti-ice' on my side. The Captain announced the abort and a very aggressive stop was initiated. We came to a stop on the runway and the Captain instructed me to tell the Tower. The aggressive stop was a result of the RTO activating. I did not make the 80 knot call out; but it was evident we exceeded that airspeed. I believe the acceleration rate; taking a moment longer to set max power; and the timing of the failure all contributed to me missing the call out. The Captain called for the RTO Checklist after coordinating with the Tower to have Fire and Rescue notified. I became frustrated with my inability to find it. I spent several minutes pouring over the QRH looking for it. I now know it is no longer in the QRH and am not sure how I was not aware of this. I feel I could have done a much better job assisting the Captain if I hadn't been so distracted trying to find the RTO Checklist.




Synopsis: Aircraft lost Flight Director Command bars and had multiple warning indications during the takeoff roll. RTO was initiated by the Captain and aircraft returned to the gate. First Officer spent considerable time attempting to locate the QRH page referencing an RTO event; only to discover it had been eliminated from the QRH.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
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: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I'm only being made aware of the issue today.  Two months ago; I had a flight between two west coast cities. Dispatch view prompted me to add a radio number due to a late inbound flight with the same flight number. Per policy I added radio number XXXT and made the change within Dispatch software and with ATC. Unknown to me the Dispatcher of the inbound XXX had made his flight XXXT as well. Dispatch software does not provide this information and we no longer have a function to tell which radio numbers have already been used or else I could have selected XXXA. Or in reality; had I known the inbound already had a radio number I could have left my leg alone completely. But as the system is set up now there was no prompt so we ended up with two XXXT's at the same airport at the same time. At the time of occurrence I was not aware of any of this. My crew did not report any problems to best of my recollection a month after the fact after having dispatched several hundred subsequent flights.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported that after a dispatch software program change he and another Dispatcher were able to assign an outbound flight and a delayed inbound flight the same code while both aircraft were at the same airport.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action

Narrative: While we were handling a radar failed indication; the FMS message 'COMPARE FUEL QUANTITY' appears on the FMS. The First Officer and I agreed that it was probably erroneous but it could be a fuel leak. We ran the QRH for fuel leak. The QRH says: (NOTE: An unexpected difference between the total fuel quantity indicated on EICAS and the total fuel quantity indicated on the FMS Fuel Management page may indicate a fuel leak condition.) We declared an emergency and Landed at the nearest suitable airport. After crash and rescue confirmed that we did not have a fuel leak; we taxied to the gate and wrote up the discrepancies.


Second narrative: Since there were thunderstorms along our route of flight; the captain and I decided to advise ATC of the failure and asked if they could vector us around the thunderstorms since our radar display was not accurate. A few minutes later ATC gave us new routing to bring us around the back side of the weather. We were then told by ATC to expect holding as no aircraft were landing due to thunderstorms. After running the QRH procedure for the situation; we broke out of the clouds and were able to remain VMC and visually avoid the convective activity. We were told by ATC that planes were now landing and to disregard holding.


Synopsis: The flight crew of an ERJ-170 responded appropriately to a 'Compare Fuel Quantity' ECAM message; declared an emergency and landed at the nearest suitable airport. A concurrent failed weather radar; and the presence of convective weather; turned out to be surmountable complicating factors.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Toy/Consumer Unmanned Aircraft System - Parrot S.A. Rolling Spider Mini Drone. We were flying it outside using an iPhone 6 Plus; via Bluetooth 4.0; and the Parrot S.A. FreeFlight 3.0 iOS application. The application has an altitude limitation option which was on by default to (according to my best recollection) on or about 9 meters (I can't access the option to verify the value without the UAS; but it was active). The aircraft was outside and went into an uncontrolled straight vertical climb. The Bluetooth 4.0 range is about 20 meters; which it rapidly exceeded and lost connectivity with the controller. The UAS; being so small (approximately 5 inches in length; 5 inches in width; and 2 inches height) continued to climb until we lost visual contact. The device had approximately 80% battery life remaining; and can fly up to 5-10 minutes at full charge. I do not know how high the UAS climbed out of control before it began a descent. The UAS has not been found. There were no other aircraft in the immediate vicinity. A brief search on[line] indicates other users having similar problems with these Toy/Consumer UAS devices.




Synopsis: Small drone operator reports losing control of a mini drone which disappears out of sight vertically and is not recovered. The drone had a pre programmed altitude limit of nine meters and was being controlled by an iPhone with a free flight application via bluetooth.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
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)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight was dispatched to ZZZ with NOTAMs for ZZZ showing that no legal runway was open for the time of our arrival. Which caused us to divert to a nearby airport. It goes without saying I as the Captain told sole responsible for dispatching this flight under the supplemental air carrier certificate. That being said we as crew members must have some faith in the system. We have to ask why an airport that was NOTAM to be unusable a good [number of] hours before departure time was even allowed to be flight planed. I received my copy of the plan before departing the hotel. This is the problem we live with today; the crews are expected to go through all the paperwork and find all mistakes in a very short period of time. In this every increasing complex environment we operate in where it is not uncommon to receive up to 50 pages of information to be deciphered in a short period of time. The current operation is setting us up for failure. My only solution to this is to institute a dispatch system. The dual responsibility will go a long way making sure that more than one person is looking at all the information.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported they diverted because the filed destination airport had been NOTAMed closed during the scheduled arrival period; but neither the Captain nor Dispatch caught the closure notice.