elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skydio 2
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise; Hovering (UAS); Return to Home (UAS)
Aircraft component: Receiver (UAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automated Return to Home (UAS); Aircraft Lost Link (UAS); Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The RPIC was standing near the lateral middle of the bridge and flew the Skydio 2 under the deck to inspect the underside.  When the drone was well under the bridge; lost link occurred.  The drone initiated an RTH but was unable to find a path home; so it maintained a static hover under the bridge. The RPIC moved to the side of the bridge and regained link and then safely returned the aircraft.  Flight mode was manual (no 3d scan or autonomous flight plan).  Operations were discontinued after this incident.




Synopsis: UAS had a lost link occur during flight. Pilot regained link with UAS and used manual control to recover the UAS.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Since IAH has changed over to the new SIDs and STARs we have been getting STAR clearance changes much more frequently.  Many times these changes come at inopportune times (below 10;000 FT; Taxiout; etc).  As an example this morning while in MSY we received a new clearance which switched our STAR from the HCKRY1 to the GILLL1; then after pushing back and taxing to the runway we were recleared back on the HCKRY1.  Although this may not seem like a big deal it adds chances for mistakes to be made and increases the threat of making a mistake.  While on the STAR we were told to expect 8R but shortly before beginning the transition for 8R we were told to fly the 8R transition but expect 8L.  The 737 FMC will not allow you to do this; it can not fly one transition and load another runway.  So we were below 10;000; intermittent IMC and trying to reprogram the FMC.  Mind you there is no way to fly the STAR without the FMC.  We ended up leaving 8R loaded till we were taken off the arrival and then switching the FMC to 8L.  There is a reason we brief these approaches above 18;000 FT and that is for safety.  We all realize the ATC system is dynamic and changes have to be made on short notice but coinciding with the change over to the new SID's and STAR's these changes have become much more frequent and it is only a matter of time before someone gets violated or something worse.  Most pilots complained about DEN and never flying the STAR they were filed and now we have the same thing here in IAH.  Thank you for your consideration with this matter.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer laments the frequent changes to SIDs and STARs during arrivals and departures from IAH. The FMC will not allow a transition to one runway with an expected landing on a different runway. The change can only be made after leaving the transition.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZBAA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After clearing Runway 36R in PEK at Taxiway W6; we switched to Ground frequency on 121.9.  The Controller gave us a taxi instruction of W6; Z4; Z3 to parking.  The Controller was very hard to understand but; I read back the instructions to her correctly.  We proceeded off of W6 with a right turn onto Taxiway F for a short distance.  The controller never included Taxiway F in her clearance.  The Commercial 1 Ground diagram chart at PEK is extremely cluttered; especially in that location.  I did not even see M3 when I referenced the chart.  We mistakenly turned on M3 thinking it was Z4.  After making the right turn onto Z3 the Controller pointed out our mistake in a informative tone.  There were no other aircraft in the area; nor did it create any undue safety issues.  I feel the confusing signage; cluttered Taxi diagram as well as the Controller's lack of concise instructions contributed to our mistake.  Need less confusing signage.  Clean up an already cluttered taxi diagram.  Stop and clarify confusing instructions before proceeding.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports confusing signage; a cluttered Taxi diagram as well as the Controllers lack of concise instructions contributed to a Taxiway incursion after landing at ZBAA.
Date: 201807
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer was the Pilot Flying; and was relatively new to the airplane. During climb on the departure; ATC assigned a heading of 090 degrees for weather. At acceleration altitude; the Captain selected Speed Intervene and 265 knots as a buffer above minimum clean maneuvering speed. During the climb; many altitude assignments were received and complied with. Passing approximately 15000 feet; I noticed the MCP was still in Speed Intervene; and I mentioned it to the First Officer; as there was a lot of difficult ATC communications happening. Approaching several cells; the aircraft encountered heavy moderate turbulence; and since the speed was close to the minimum; the stick shaker activated. The First Officer called out to lower the nose and increase power [and] made a public address to the flight attendants to be seated immediately. Concurrently; the Captain took control of the aircraft and initiated the stall recovery profile. I believe we lost around 2000 feet. The aircraft was recovered and resumed a normal climb and the flight attendants were asked to check in. [There were] no injuries.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported a stick shaker activation and loss of altitude.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The forward 1L PA/Intercom unit was completely inoperative. I had a very short briefing with the flight deck to discuss bathroom breaks and emergency entrance to the flight deck. The inflight team continually had to deal with this problem to coordinate announcements; door closure; arming/disarming doors; service issues and general guest issues. We managed through both flights but as a group; we felt this was an unsafe experience. It was especially uncomfortable in relation to all things safety. Please read through our current announcements and take away the use of this PA. I had to interrupt the flight deck process to contact the back for door closure and arming. If this was an isolated issue that happened during a flight; I would understand but this aircraft has been flying for a while with green stickers all plastered in the equipment. It flew through ZZZ and ZZZ1-two cities where maintenance could have been done or an aircraft swap. I did not feel safe flying both legs under these conditions but we had no choice. Please consider changing our policy on allowing aircraft to fly like this.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported having to work a flight with the forward PA system inoperative.
Date: 201711
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After the plane was parked; I approached the rear aft cargo door; I drove the belt loader up to open it. I raised the boom to enter the aft [cargo compartment] when my visor was sucked into engine.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported approaching the cargo door with engine running after gate arrival.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 11R.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G 11R
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an RNAV 34 approach into 11R; once landed on Runway 34; an aircraft landed on the opposing Runway 16. I had been switched from ZZZ Center 13 miles out and had made a 10 mile; 5 mile; 3 mile final and short final call out for [Runway] 34. No traffic was heard on the frequency until after the incursion. My aircraft could not have done a go-around as the aircraft was already on the ground and the configuration had already been changed; as well as the distance was gauged to be too close to gain the airspeed needed. I swerved to the left side of the Runway to avoid the traffic; while the other traffic swerved to the right side; relative to me. I pulled back on the yoke to provide drag to slow down; and applied the brakes heavily. We passed each other without the aircraft touching; and we were both still in motion when we passed. When my aircraft stopped I proceeded to taxi off on the next available taxiway. While doing this someone came onto the frequency asked me if I was all right and gave me their tail number. I then taxied back to the run-up area for Runway 34. Upon stopping; another aircraft came onto the frequency and gave me their information as well; the aircraft that was believed to have been the opposing traffic. With that I departed the active Runway of 34 to the north.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported landing on runway when another aircraft landed on the opposing runway at 11R non-towered airport; with aircraft missing each other by five feet after taking evasive action.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Tower, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Charlotte approach and tower are putting convenience over safety. They are making air traffic land and take off in 8 kt tailwinds. They will not turn the airport around to allow us to land and take off into the wind because it is inconvenient for them. I landed to today on a wet runway with a 9 kt tailwind according to my air data computer. That is 1 kt below our limit of 10 kt tailwind. This unsafe behavior from CLT causes us to take unnecessary risks and puts our passengers in danger.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reports landing Runway 18R at CLT in moderate rain and an 8 knot tailwind and questions the wisdom of not turning the airport around to land to the south.
Date: 202111
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During Crew O2 bottle shut off valve safety wire inspection; it was noted that the Crew O2 bottle service port cap was loose and not seated/sealing. The security of the cap (tight/ sealed) is an aircraft safety item. If the service port (internal) check valve fails; the only remaining protection to stop 100 percent oxygen (tank) from discharging into the aircraft is the service port cap!!! A non-seated/ sealed cap (like this occurrence) would have the same end effect; as not having a cap installed at all.There is no CDL relief for a missing cap (no-go item with a missing cap). 100% oxygen discharge into cabin could be an extreme fire/ explosive hazard under some circumstances. Additionally; if the Crew O2 bottle inadvertently discharges during flight; there will not be oxygen available for the flight crew to perform their duties during event. Another scenario is with an oxygen tank low pressure/ no pressure condition; could cause the Flight Crew to divert the flight.Recommend:1) Maintenance Training2) Maintenance Bulletin3) Technician Crew Briefing Item




Synopsis: During Maintenance Inspection on an A320 aircraft; it was reported that the Crew O2 Bottle Service Port Cap was loose and not sealing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 6;000 FT climbing out a jolt was felt in the airframe with a mild shudder that decreased in magnitude over a period of about 30 seconds. The shudder reduced to zero. During the initial event the left EGT indication cycled rapidly from min to max and then failed. Except for the missing EGT indication; all engine indications were normal. An emergency was declared and ARFF was requested. A turn to 180 degrees was requested so that we would be on a right downwind for the runway. The Emergency Landing and Overweight Landing checklists were accomplished. A flap 25 landing was performed with a landing weight of approximately 620;000 LBS. Reverse was not used on the left engine and full reverse was used on the right. Manual braking was applied at approximately 130 KTS. All but about 1;000 FT of runway was used. After clearing the runway we requested ARFF perform a visual inspection of the left engine and the brakes. The onboard brake temperature system showed all temperatures less than 5.0 except for brake #5 indicating 5.1 and brake #9 indicating 5.5. Most brakes were indicating less than 4.0. ARFF said the left brake was smoking and applied water to all brakes; left and right side; to cool what I thought were fairly normal brake temperatures for this situation. I was unable to communicate directly with the Fire Chief. A discrete frequency was requested from Ground Control. We were told that we would have to communicate through the Ground Controller to the Fire Chief. I requested that we be towed to the gate to deplane the passengers. Ground requested we deplane the passengers on the taxiway using stairs. I requested a gate several times. I was unable to get the aircraft to a gate and the aircraft was towed to the ramp and deplaned using stairs. The passengers were bussed to the terminal.


Second narrative: [No additional information contained in this report.]


Synopsis: The crew of a Boeing 777-200 climbing through about 6;000 FT felt a jolt and a mild shudder that dissipated to zero after approximately 30 seconds; followed by failure of the left engine EGT. All other indications remained normal; an emergency was declared and a return and overweight landing was conducted at the departure airport.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LNK.TRACON, NE
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LNK
ATC / advisory: Tower LNK
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After checking in with approach we were given a runway assignment of runway 35. After the airplane was configured for 35 we received a runway change to 36 due to traffic for 35. Shortly after we were cleared for a visual approach. My flying pilot began a turn into a down wind to give herself a little space before a base turn to ensure a stabilized approach. The controller then notified us that we would need us to proceed straight to the numbers to avoid a loss of separation with an inbound IFR [multiengine aircraft] for runway 35. We were surprised that the Controller failed to provide us with any situational awareness of other traffic before clearing us for a visual and now needed us to either 'go-around' or proceed direct to the numbers. I believe the controller did a rather poor job providing us with either information or the spacing required to execute a proper visual approach. We were able to continue and execute a stabilized approach.I spoke to the Controller on the phone after landing and voiced my concern. He was very professional and receptive.


Second narrative: We asked the Controller while airborne and again in a phone call after landing why he would clear us for a visual (allowing us to plan our own flight path based on altitude and speeds) and then start telling us very specific instructions to follow with the threat of going around. The only other aircraft in the airspace was a [multiengine aircraft] on a practice instrument approach to runway 35. He replied that the [multiengine aircraft] was IFR and he has to maintain spacing until we were on final which I understand. I just don't see why he didn't alert us to the other traffic and allow us to acquire them visually and plan an appropriate descent to the airfield based on our SOP's speed and altitude. The Controller replied that he is a pilot so he knows. I suspect he knows that a small aircraft could easily do what he was asking and has no clue that he was causing us time compression and nearly caused us to be too high because we had to cut a corner to follow his directions.


Synopsis: Fractional business jet flight crew reported ATC increased their workload on a visual approach to LNK because of possible conflict with an aircraft on a practice IFR approach.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 01A.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other Government duty
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing rollout
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During landing; the aircraft contacted a shrub with the right wing outboard leading edge on final rollout. No substantial damage occurred.




Synopsis: A small aircraft at 01A struck a 'shrub' on final rollout.