elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [After fueling was complete] we showed 32.2K on the total fuel quantity gauge and adding the individual fuel quantity gauges together agreed. During the Before Start Checklist; however; the left inboard fuel gauge lost 2;000 LBS and the total fuel quantity gauge showed the 2;000 LBS lost as well.Maintenance was called and drained 2.5 gallons of water from the left main tank and a company Mechanic stated that fuel sample checks were not being performed as required. Ultimately; mechanics could not fix problem and we refused the aircraft due to class 2 nav.


Second narrative: Maintenance reset circuit breakers; waved chicken bones; prayed and changed the fuel processor. Still 10;200. Changed fuel processor; 10;200. Maintenance Control suggested checking for water in tank. The first Mechanic said they drained five gallons of water out of left main; second Mechanic said 2.5 gallons and said every second check; fuel sample should have been taken and; obviously; wasn't.


Synopsis: An A320 flight crew refused their aircraft and canceled the flight when fuel gauge discrepancies occurred followed by the discovery of significant amounts of water in the fuel.
Date: 201711
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp reported finding 3 pallets missing from offload. Items 13; 14; and 19 were shown in position 32L; 34L; and 35L were not on board. In training; removing these items results in a nose heavy condition. Updating the [weight index] with the maximum CG envelope results in a legal manifest. With the legal manifest; a significant weight change was calculated. This error could have resulted in a potential safety of flight issue.


Second narrative: Offloading [the] flight there was supposed to be 4 pallets in the back of the plane. There was only 1; with a weight discrepancy of 28;016.


Synopsis: Ramp personnel reported that 3 pallets were missing from an offload causing a large weight discrepancy.
Date: 202106
Location: BTR.Airport, LA
Weather elements / visibility: Clouds; 7
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BTR
ATC / advisory: TRACON BTR
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on an IFR flight plan in Aircraft X. We were talking to BTR Approach on 120.3 as they were vectoring us for the ILS 13 approach. The copilot was the pilot flying. We were descending through 5400 ft. when we exited a cloud and the copilot spotted two motorized hang gliders approximately 200 feet below us. The copilot immediately arrested the descent in order to avoid the hang gliders. The copilot alerted ATC of the traffic at that position. They apparently were not squawking a transponder code because ATC did not alert us and we were not painting them on our traffic system. We landed Baton Rouge without incident.




Synopsis: Captain reported an NMAC event with two powered hang gliders that did not show up on radar during approach to BTR airport.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Pedal
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on final I noticed that I wasn't having my feet in the normal position for landing. I went to adjust the rudder pedals and as soon as I applied pressure they moved away from me again. I was able to steer and brake with only mild difficulty. As I was taxiing in I advised my FO (First Officer) of the issue so he would make sure he was ready to apply the brakes. I wrote up the issue for maintenance.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported having problems adjusting the rudder pedals while attempting to steer the aircraft.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CHS.TRACON, SC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There is an error in the AMYLU RNAV STAR into CHS. If you reference the arrival; this will be clearer. On the descent into CHS; the altitude restrictions on the BAMDE transition from AMYLU are 'at or above' until you actually talk to CHS Approach and they assign you a final and a runway. However; in our case today; if you get handed off late to Approach you can be on VPATH and then have them assign you an approach and; when you select the approach; be immediately 6;000 feet high. The problem is that the BAMDE altitude needs to be a hard altitude or a window; say 5;000 feet to 3;000 feet. As it is; either 3;001 feet or 10;999 feet satisfies the arrival programming. All other ending altitudes that I find on RNAV arrivals are hard altitudes. Even the other transitions on the AMYLU Arrival have hard altitudes as final altitudes; i.e. KREIS at 3;000 feet; WABLO at 3;000 feet; and KMBEE at 4;000 feet.Today we found ourselves in this position and had to ask for and execute a 360-degree turn to lose enough altitude to shoot the RNAV RNP Z to 21. In accordance with the procedure; Approach Control assigns the approach and runway and; until they do that; you have a discontinuity from the end of the arrival to the approach. It is this discontinuity that causes the FMC to not descend at the proper rate so as to be in a position to execute the approach.




Synopsis: A B737-700 Captain believes the crossing altitude depicted at BAMDE waypoint (at or above 3;000 feet); on the AMYLU RNAV STAR for arrivals to Runway 21 at CHS; is inappropriate and should be a hard altitude to prevent arriving aircraft from being too high to continue the approach.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was requesting a visual approach to MRI from the south; I gave him a descent to 3000 ft MSL; but he wanted to stay high for a while. A few minutes later I gave him 'descend at pilot's discretion; maintain 4000.' A VFR aircraft departed MRI and requested 1000 ft to Campbell Lake; which is in ANC's airspace (we have a shelf 600 ft and below over the lake to accommodate these pilots so they are out of the way and can land without talking to Tower). I asked to verify that he wanted to stay that high over the lake he was landing; and he was adamant that he remain that high. Meanwhile; Aircraft X departed Runway 25L; stopped at 4000 ft for a small transport aircraft on the right downwind for Runway 15 at 5000 ft. The Aircraft Y finally began his descent; but while I was frantically trying to coordinate this aircraft at 1000 ft; I failed to notice him begin his descent. By the time I noticed; he was already descending through 3700 ft. I gave him a panic vector to the east to avoid Aircraft X; but I lost lateral separation before I got vertical. I will not get hung up on the VFR aircraft making unnecessary requests while I have IFR departures and arrivals. Because I was getting frustrated with this guy; I lost lateral separation between two IFR aircraft. I will be sure to tell him 'unable' next time instead of bending over backwards while I'm busy. This facility has a habit of encouraging us to do extra things with VFR guys; even when we're busy; and it's not worth the traffic count to lose the picture for an aircraft who will only be in our airspace for less than 2 miles. Anchorage TRACON (Tower & ARTCC) need to stop being afraid of saying no.




Synopsis: A11 Controller reports of a loss of separation between two IFR aircraft. Controller was distracted working with a VFR aircraft when one of the IFR aircraft descended into the altitude of traffic restricted below it.
Date: 202106
Location: SJU.TRACON, PR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SJU
ATC / advisory: TRACON SJU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Requested the SAALR2 STAR with SJU Approach Control. They informed me that ALL the STARs were NOTAMed out in 2013. Which is interesting for three reasons; 1. All the STARs are dated NOV; 2018. 2. The ZZZ-SJU flight plan didn't contain any NOTAMs for the STARs. 3. Jeppesen Flitedeck Pro (FD PRO) also didn't show any NOTAMs for any STARs.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that SJU TRACON informed the crew that the STAR they requested was NOTAMed out of service; however; other sources did not show any such NOTAMs.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: SR22
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed PHL on an IFR flight plan for a nearby satellite airport. The aircraft was given runway heading and 3;000 feet by the Tower. When the pilot checked in; he asked to maintain VFR on course. At that point I falsely assumed the aircraft was a VFR departure and began handling him as such. I cleared the aircraft out of the Bravo at or below 2;500 feet; and verified they were familiar with an antenna north of the airport. The pilot leveled at 2;000 feet and flew through the 2;500 feet MVA associated with the antenna. When the aircraft got close to the destination airport; they asked to cancel IFR. The issue didn't even immediately register until I heard it later on the playback.I should check every departure strip more closely. The aircraft's data tag was properly displaying as IFR - I believe that seeing the weight category displayed; and not looking at it closely; made me assume the aircraft was VFR (just because there was some character in the lower right of the tag).




Synopsis: PHL TRACON Controller reported mistakenly handling an IFR aircraft as if it were VFR; leading to an MVA violation.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were coming into [the destination] airport. The visibility was reduced due to haze but still good enough for visual approaches. The first officer was acting as the pilot flying on this leg. During the brief; I brought to his attention the possibility of a high-energy descent and the risk of an unstable approach. Our mitigation strategy was to slow down and partially configure the aircraft prior to starting our descent. By the time we were on base (about 15NM from Runway 26 L); we had the gear down and flaps 30. This to me seemed like an overcorrection; however; it was understandable due to the first officer's lack of recent experience coming into this specific airport and his intention to be on the safe side. By the time we were 10 NM out; we were perfectly set on course; glide; and speed. This was a long and slow straight-in approach; during which I was constantly monitoring speed; sink rate and glide. We passed 1000 FT AGL on a very stable glide towards the runway. At 500 FT the stabilized call out took place but shortly after we got a configuration warning (TOO LOW; FLAPS) due to the flaps still being set to 30. At this point; the first officer seemed to panic and asked to check spoilers and select flaps 45 (we were around 400 AGL) to which I responded; 'go around'. We executed a go around and got vectors to an uneventful landing.We were so focused on getting the plane down and stable that we lost track of our configuration. Our mitigation strategy; while it helped us avoid the threat of a high-energy decent; it caused us to forget setting the flaps to 45; and as a result; not performing the before landing check; which only gets triggered by the last configuration call out.This event helped me realize the existence of threat built into our SOP. The point of the before landing checklist is to make sure the airplane is fully configured prior to landing however; this checklist is part of the flaps 45 call out. That means that forgetting the flaps will cause forgetting the checklist that is supposed to check the flaps.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain reported an unstable approach due to a configuration issue. A missed approach was performed and the subsequent approach and landing was successfully completed.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Jet Blast; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on ILS final to LAX Runway 25L at approximately 7 miles from Runway 25L and 2;000 feet AGL; LAX Tower cleared a B747 to take off in front of us on 25L. Both the Captain and I remarked that we were unhappy with the spacing and while it looked like the runway would be clear in time; we both remarked that we should be prepared to go-around. The Captain elected to fly slightly above the glide path to avoid turbulence; but at around 200 feet AGL we encountered moderate turbulence from the departing B747 lasting around 1-2 seconds. After exiting the turbulence I estimated we would touch down 2;000-2;500 feet down; and I said; 'We're going to be long.' The Captain made a smooth correction to glide path and a smooth touchdown probably around the 2;000 foot point. There were no GPWS warnings or 'long landing' warnings at any point. I don't know whether the Tower spacing between us and the B747 met standards; but I thought it was a poor decision to clear a B747 for takeoff in front of us with that spacing on the same runway.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the aircraft encountered moderate wake and/or jet blast turbulence on short final at LAX from a departing B747.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When on arrival and approach the flight was put 5nm in trail of a 757. This caused the aircraft to experience wake turbulence intermittently for the last approximately 100nm of the flight. While focusing on mitigation strategies for the wake; a loss of situational awareness occurred causing the pilot flying to become high and fast on approach. Aircraft was configured by 1;000 feet AGL; however was still stabilizing airspeed. Aircraft landed without incident. Increased spacing between heavy jets and regional jets would reduce the pilot workload on arrival and approach and thus minimize the chance of fixation on that issue.

Callback: Reporter stated spacing between different category aircraft should be increased.



Synopsis: Regional Jet First Officer reported distractions from wake turbulence on arrival in trail of a B757 led to an unstabilized approach.