elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon setting the parking brake and shutting down the right engine; the Captain announced he had to go back and use the restroom.  Upon returning to his seat; he said that his understanding was that since the aircraft was effectively disabled with an engine shutdown; he could do so without calling the Flight Attendant and setting up the barrier.  We then taxied to the gate without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reports the Captain using the restroom facilities while waiting for a gate with one engine shut down and the parking brake set; without summoning a Flight Attendant.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] originally cleared to SJC via FMG HYP5 at 16;000 feet.While enroute to ELCAP at 16;000 feet Oakland Center [cleared] us 'Direct STUBL for the RAZRR2 arrival' with no additional altitude directions. We were then handed off to NorCal Approach. NorCal issued 'Direct RAZRR RAZRR2 Arrival.'We crossed RAZRR at 16;000 feet (6;000 feet below the publish altitude on the arrival). As we were making the turn over RAZRR; NorCal asked; 'Are you established on the RAZRR2?' We advised; 'Yes; we are making the turn over RAZRR now; do you show something else?' NorCal's reply was; 'No; it just looked like you weren't going to make the turn.'As we approached TRCOT; NorCal gave us a traffic advisory for an aircraft at 8;000 feet. We advised them; 'We are still at 16;000 feet; do you want lower?'NorCal replied; 'I asked if you were established on the RAZRR2; and you said 'yes' that means you are supposed to be descending according to the arrival.'We advised we had not been given 'Descend Via' at any point. We were then cleared to 6;500 feet and quickly descended there with no further incident.Use of the standard phraseology such as; 'Direct RAZRR for the RAZRR2; cross OUCHH at 16;000 then descend via the arrival' would have avoided the confusion.Also; if entering an arrival at such a low altitude; leaving the aircraft on an arrival without published crossing restrictions (such as the HYP5 we were originally cleared).




Synopsis: A Captain reported they were not aware that ATC expected them to 'descend via' the RAZRR2 arrival into SJC.
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: 3 to 4 times a week we are being mandated to handle the arrival of this Radioactive Dangerous Goods. US Customs have met this flight at the arriving gate US Custom that this is Radioactive (Good) and that they are not to handle without protection or knowledge of what it is. Our manager has indicated that this are chemicals for cancer treatments. I [had] reached out to top Management who have told me that even if the shipper told us that it is Radioactive we will still have to conduct our test like US Customs do. Also that they will get back to us we are still waiting. (US Customs told our driver and Company Management in writing not to handle it; we have a picture of the letter). After a few conversations with the Manager we were still not clear. I have spoken to several personnel at hospitals and they handle that very differently or not at all. We feel being forced to handle radioactive material against our will and without knowledge of how dangerous it is.




Synopsis: Ramp agent reported that procedures concerning dangerous goods are not being properly followed.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SDM; Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was released for departure off of SDM on the sole DVA of heading 280.  After I released him a VFR target that had been maneuvering offshore at 4;700 ft began to descend and fly towards SDM.  Aircraft X departed just as the VFR was descending through 2;700 ft. I called SDM tower to see if they were talking to that traffic to see if they could stop the descent but they were not talking to him. Aircraft X checked on with me; I stopped his climb at 2;000 and called traffic; hoping the target would stop descending or that Aircraft X would see him.  Neither occurred; so I turned Aircraft X left to avoid traffic; below the MVA. Aircraft X was at 1;700 ft in a 1;900 ft MVA.  I should have called SDM tower sooner to see if they could just hold the departure until we saw exactly what the VFR traffic would do.




Synopsis: SoCal TRACON Controller reported vectoring an aircraft below the MVA to avoid traffic.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed Runway 8R at LAS behind an A320 Airbus. We were asked to maintain visual with the Airbus on the TRALR9 during climbout which we did brief prior to departure. On climb out we encountered some wake turbulence from the Airbus so I increased our rate of ascent to gain altitude above the climb vector of the Airbus. I was hand flying during this phase of flight and my focus was to avoid another wake encounter and I missed the crossing restriction of 7;000 ft. which was the top altitude at BAKRR intersection on the TRALR9. My First Officer was communicating with ATC and completing the checklist and also missed the altitude call-out at BAKRR. Our altitude select was set at and to maintain FL190 as the 'Top' altitude from TRALR intersection and to expect higher per the TRALR9 in 10 minutes after departure. Our inattentiveness as a crew to properly monitor the crossing restriction at BAKRR and having too much focus on wake avoidance led to our altitude deviation. We also should have requested a delayed departure to provide more separation from the departing Airbus for wake avoidance reasons.




Synopsis: Hawker 850XP Captain reported that a wake turbulence encounter on departure caused them to miss a crossing restriction.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-24
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through 19;000 feet; crew heard a loud pop. After initial assessment of instruments with no obvious failures; we discovered the LH side cockpit window was cracked. Crew was familiar with this failure; as it has happened to multiple PC24 operators. I verified it was the outer (non-structural) ply of the windshield that was damaged. I took over radio duties while the FO (First Officer) consulted the QRH. There is no procedure for outer ply damage; only inner ply. The decision was made to return to ZZZ where we knew we had a spare aircraft available. After telling company what our plan was; we told ATC we would like to change destination to ZZZ. We made a normal approach and landing. ATC must have declared [priority handling] on our behalf. Trucks were standing by on arrival. Debriefed with FO; discussed division of duties; handling of checklists; and CRM decision to return to ZZZ.




Synopsis: Captain reported a cockpit side window shattered; resulting in an air turn back and precautionary landing.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: COS.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground COS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After landing; could not get Station Operations to answer on the radio. Upon arrival at the gate; it began to rain and lightning was in the vicinity. Still could not contact Operations on the radio to find out if the ramp was closed. Airport Ground Controller confirmed as such. Finally; ramp closure was lifted and station marshaller arrived with no lighted wands to guide us in. I could barely make out his guide signals due to the intense nature of the rain. Could not contact Station Operations to inform them to get lighted wands that I could see clearly. Having no communication with Operations and no lighted wands are; both equally; safety issues at this station. Provide lighted wands and an operable radio for ZZZ.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the COS marshaller arrived with no lighted wands to guide the aircraft in at night and during intense rain.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Pretaxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had uncommanded nose gear retraction while stationary on ramp.  Line personnel brought over maintenance; who called recovery expert to lift aircraft nose off ground so gear could be extended and inspected. No damage was noted. Eclipse service center was notified; and instructed me to pull landing gear breakers and fly with gear down to a factory facility. Maintenance personnel from two FBO's concurred.  I flew the aircraft with gear down.

Callback: Reporter states that there is a known fault with with the originally installed EA50 landing gear actuators and that the replacement actuators are made by a different manufacturer.  Each landing gear actuator is self contained with its' own hydraulic fluid; pump and logic circuit.  This logic circuit may be the root of the problem.  The gear has no mechanical down lock and relies entirely on the lack of an up command from the landing gear selector and/or a weight on wheels sensor signal to this logic circuit.



Synopsis: EA50 pilot experiences an uncommanded nose gear retraction while stationary on the ramp after engine start.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
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: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Original Arrival Clearance was TTORO3. On climbout or cruise; we received a new arrival into IAH; MSCOT4. I loaded this into the box; and based on the ATIS I loaded an ILS 26R approach into the FMS. Subsequently we were issued the DRLLR 5 Arrival; and I believe we loaded the ILS 26R approach again. At some point on descent into IAD on the DRLLR5; we were told to expect the RNAV RNP Y 26R approach. I loaded this into the box; set it up; did the QRH procedure 180.6; and based on the information we had (delayed into IAH; long line of traffic on final showing on TCAS for 26R; etc. etc.); I loaded the HOOTI transition into the FMS. Approx 5-10 miles prior to SKLER; we received an approach clearance for the RNAV RNP Y 26R. I don't recall who reloaded the box for the 4th or 5th time; but we needed to change the transition so that the airplane would fly the RF leg. When the approach was reloaded just prior to SKLER; there was a discontinuity built into the approach; and it reprogrammed the airplane to fly the 087 track after SKLER as per the DRLLR 5 arrival (although the RF leg was being depicted). We did not catch the fact that there were two SKLERs depicted in the box or that DRKAR was not the active waypoint (which it should have been with the RF leg); and so the airplane didn't immediately start the RF when we were expecting it to (although the RF leg was still depicted on the MAP. When I realized the airplane wasn't making the turn; I disconnected the autopilot and initiated the turn manually. As I started the turn; ATC told us to [contact] approach clearance; turn left to 090; and descend and maintain 3000 feet. We were vectored back out onto the approach on a long final and completed the RNAV RNP Y 26R Approach without incident.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV (RNP) Y approach to 26R in IAH when the flight crew failed to trap an FMC programming error.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Spilled half cup of coffee on center pedestal on ADF Control Panel and VHF #2 Control Panel while in cruise flight.The event was caused by crew not being careful enough while preparing a cup of coffee prior to descending for landing.  We lost VHF 2 comm.  We communicated problem to Maintenance through ACARS and used VHF 1 only.  During descent cleared on the STAR; VHF 1 deteriorated to the point of being inoperative.  We used 7600 on transponder; transmitted intentions in the blind and used ACARS to communicate intentions to ATC.  We navigated to our clearance limit in VMC and were able to contact ZZZ tower via cell phone for visual approach and landing clearance to runway 36L.  Landed uneventfully and used assistance of 'follow me' vehicle to taxi to the gate.Do not place any open liquid container on top of the center pedestal.




Synopsis: An A300 Captain spilled coffee on the center pedestal and caused a loss of all communication.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we rotated the Left Engine reverser light and master caution illuminated. We leveled at 5;000 MSL; completed the climb check and ran the QRH. We contacted the Company and Maintenance said the reverser should not deploy. However; a QRH note said additional system failures may cause in flight deployment thus; although Maintenance said it would be OK to continue; the First Officer and I agreed it was not safe to fly three hours over water. We all agreed for safety of flight to return and fix the problem. We completed an in range and approach brief; landed; and wrote up the reverser and our overweight landingAfter landing the left engine reverser was pinned and an overweight landing check completed.


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


Synopsis: When the left engine reverser and master caution lights illuminated shortly after takeoff the flight crew elected to return to their departure airport for maintenance attention.
Date: 201702
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I would like to echo the concerns voiced in [previous reports] concerning visibility through the windshield in moderate to heavy rain. I had a virtually identical event landing at ZZZ. In retrospect; I should have filed an ASAP report then. In rainy conditions the view out of the windshield distorts your depth perception and creates a major safety hazard in the landing phase of flight. I understand that the crew has the ability to call for a go-around at any time; but if the company was reconditioning windshields as discussed in the [previous reports]; crews would not be unnecessarily put 'in the yellow'.  Any cost savings realized from not reapplying the hydrophobic coating at regular intervals will be quickly lost when a crew puts an aircraft off the end of a wet runway. In my previous life; our windshields were regularly treated; and I can assure you it makes a significant difference.Poor visibility resulting from lack of rain repellent. I believe windshields [should be maintained] to function the way they did when Boeing delivered the airplanes.




Synopsis: B737NG flight crew member reported he had difficulty with poor visibility through the windshield in heavy rain during an approach. He reported he was concerned with his company's decision to not reapply rain repellent coating to the windshields.