elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: WRI.TRACON, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E WRI
ATC / advisory: Military Facility WRI; TRACON WRI
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the SIC and Pilot Flying on this Part 91 repositioning leg from BLM.  The Captain (the Pilot Not Flying) acquired the ATC clearance while I was starting the aircraft.  We received a clearance to proceed direct to DIXIE and then the CYN 226 degree radial at 11 miles.  As PNF; the Captain pulled out charts and tried to determine whether or not the 226 degree radial at 11 miles was a named fix or not.  He determined it was not; so he set up raw data for me as I taxied out for departure.  After departure; we flew the clearance as issued (or so we thought); but it turns out the Captain mistakenly entered the reciprocal of the 226 degree radial.  In other words; we hit the 11 DME fix northeast of the CYN VOR instead of southwest.  McGuire approach questioned us and I immediately noticed the error in NAVAID setup.  After some back and forth and clarification; we received a new instruction to proceed direct to ACY VOR and the flight continued normally.  The Captain and PNF definitely made an error in entering the flight plan; and I should have caught this error myself.  However; it is not company SOP for me to double-check his flight plan entries; and I was task saturated and did not notice the error.  Looking back on our clearance; both the Captain and I felt that it was unnecessarily complicated.  It would have simplified matters if we were cleared DIXIE CYN CYN226011.  With the clearance as it was; it was up to us to try and navigate between DIXIE and CYN226011.  Both the Captain and I have significant experience operating into BLM airport; and we both remarked on how frequently the clearances are unnecessarily complicated.  It is very difficult for us in our aircraft to navigate to unspecified radial/DME fixes.  While it can be done; I feel it would be in the interest of safety for McGuire to simplify their departure clearances when at all possible and eliminate the use of radial/DME fixes.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft First Officer reported a track deviation error; with the clearance to a radial/DME fix cited as contributory. Reporter stated complex clearances tend to be the norm when operating in BLM.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
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 Gate; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the initial climb we were cleared on course and to maintain 280 KTS. Cabin altitude and pressure differential were normal through FL180. Passing FL200 the cabin altitude light illuminated. The cabin altitude then indicated 9;500 FT.We declared an emergency and initiated an emergency descent to 10;000 MSL. We conducted associated checklists and the cabin altitude did not get above 9;500 FT. We leveled at 10;000; and were later cleared to 6;000 FT and given a turn to intercept the localizer for the ILS 25R at our departure airport. We flew the ILS to an uneventful overweight landing at 150;500 LBS and with negligible vertical speed at touchdown. We rolled out long and applied reverse thrust and minimum necessary breaking. During the parking checklist we kept the cabin doors closed due to residual [negative] cabin pressure. I kept the flight attendants and ground personnel away from the cabin doors until the cabin pressure reached air field elevation. While the cabin pressure slowly bled down ground power was plugged in. Shortly after the ground electric was plugged in the cabin pressure dumped and one passenger ruptured her ear drum(s). Operations were notified and CFR sent an ambulance to assist. The passenger; CFR personnel and an accompanying agent were gone before our post flight checks were completed.While I was making logbook entries several Maintenance Personnel swarmed the aircraft. Maintenance advised both pressurization controllers had failed and that the aircraft had an extensive history of pressurization problems.


Second narrative: If it is true that this aircraft had a long history of pressurization problems; it is possible this event could have been avoided with a more thorough investigation of the cause of these problems. I feel the Captain handled this situation perfectly and should be commended for his efforts.


Synopsis: Upon discovery of rapidly rising and uncontrollable cabin altitude; an MD-80 flight crew declared an emergency; descended to 10;000 MSL and returned to their departure airport where the cabin retained significant negative pressure for a period of time until it dumped explosively damaging the ear drums of at least one passenger.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: As we flew towards a large fire; it became clear that the smoke cloud was building faster than previously realized. Upon noticing we needed a small correction to avoid any turbulence associated with the rising smoke cloud; we were in the process of changing frequencies. We turned 5 right to avoid the build up and let ATC know when we checked in. We then turned back on course immediately. The whole event was probably 10 to 15 seconds and a small course correction.


Second narrative: During frequency change; we had to change course to prevent flying through rapidly building smoke plume from wildfire. Clarified with new controller change of course.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported taking unauthorized deviation to avoid smoke and turbulence.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The flight was weight restricted. We sent the fuel via ACARS at the gate. Ramp ended up off loading cargo due to weight issues. We got the load closeout very quickly which is unusual for a weight restricted flight. We were super heavy on the takeoff roll. We were way too heavy to step climb as planned on our flight plan. Then enroute we were 1;400 lbs. behind on the fuel burn. On weight restricted flights; we usually get minimum fuel so that we can accommodate all the passengers and bags. This flight was an international overwater flight. We don't have many airports to choose from if we have an issue on the flight and we have to land; and most of the airports are one runway operation so our fuel burn is critical. [This was a] possible load issue.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported burning more fuel than planned on an international over-water flight and suspected the aircraft was heavier than the paperwork showed.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing Runway 27; departed runway using Taxiway K. Instructed to hold short 22R/4L on Kilo. During taxi towards the 22R/4L hold point; Tower instructed us to continue across 22L; traffic holding in position. Having not reached the 22R/4L; but just approaching it; we were about to continue our taxi across (as cleared to do so); when we saw an aircraft on departure roll on 22R just prior to their rotation. I slowed the aircraft to avoid crossing the hold short position/Runway 22R until the aircraft on departure roll rotated and departed past our position. I believe; as does my First Officer; that had we not been vigilant and cleared left and right; spotting the departing aircraft; and had we just continued our taxi across 22R with our current taxi momentum (we did slow considerably to avoid incursion) we would have been directly under that departing aircraft; by a very [small] margin. Once clear of possible incident; continued to gate. Contacted Tower from CSA phone in terminal; explained incident; [and was] told they would look into it.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain reported he was cleared to cross a runway and if he had it would have put his aircraft directly under a departure from that runway.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initiated takeoff. Aircraft approaching to land on adjacent runway initiated Go-Around. Our relative position to the Go-Around aircraft caused Tower to cancel our takeoff clearance. I was Pilot Flying (PF) though my hands were not on the thrust levers due SOP. I was pretty sure I heard the Cancel Takeoff clearance; but the Captain did not respond. I said; 'I'm pretty sure that call was for us.' The Captain immediately called Tower requesting 'Who was that for?' to which they replied with our flight number. He then initiated an RTO. We both believe our speed was about 105 knots at initiation. The RTO braking feature worked perfectly and by the time I thought to make my first call out (having to revert to Pilot Monitoring (PM) rather suddenly); we were below 60 knots. My thoughts at that time; seeing we had thousands of feet of runway remaining...was to disarm the auto brakes so the stop would not be so uncomfortable to the passengers but I remembered that is against policy. So I accepted the uncomfortable; 3;000 psi braked stop.... Our jumpseater...used the [performance computer] to determine a brake cooling time (40 minutes) as we returned to the gate for cooling and additional fuel.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information].


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew rejected takeoff at approximately 105 knots as directed by ATC due to aircraft performing a go-around on adjacent runway. Crew noted some initial confusion as to whether the 'Cancel takeoff clearance' instruction was for them.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZWY
ATC / advisory: Center ZWY
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: As we were traveling west and checked in with New York. we decided we needed to deviate for weather. Since we had just checked in with ZWY; we opted for voice rather than CPDLC for convenience. We were about 60 miles away at that time. The controller replied to stand by. After 5-10 minutes (about 30 miles from weather) went on without a reply; we called again to verify our request. ZWY wondered if we had received a CPDLC message; and we replied we had not. They said to standby. About 20 NM from the storm; we told ZWY we needed to deviate now; and that we were to deviate 10 NM south as requested. ZWY said they would relay. We gave an all traffic call advising about the deviation. The deviation started at about XA30 and ended about XA42. We reported back on track with ZWY and to general traffic. At this time ATC inquired about the logon status of our CPDLC uplink. We looked and realized the box was still linked with CZQX; having not yet switched after crossing [fix]. We told ATC and they said that was why we had not received any CPDLC message. We acknowledged that which ended the transmission. That's when we had a discussion about if we had had a clearance or not; that maybe we had been cleared through CPDLC but not received the message thanks to the late login transfer. We queried ATC which sent back a CPDLC message explaining that they had been working on it; but it had not been issued; so a possible pilot deviation existed.




Synopsis: 757 flight crew reported deviating without ATC clearance due to weather and miscommunication.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Abeam ABQ we had a GPS 1 failure with a downgrade in RNAV Navigation capability. FMS data indicated GPS jamming possibly in progress which ABQ ATC confirmed. Other air carrier aircraft were also unable to continue on RNAV routing due to the jamming most likely being done by the military at the White Sands military installation. ABQ ATC was notified of our navigation capability downgrade and we continued using ground based VOR's. My dispatcher was notified via ACARS of the issue. He ACARS'd back a NAV GPS jamming NOTAM. The jamming with GPS loss continued until approximately 100 NM outside of PHX. PHX TRACON was advised of our issue; they were unaware of the jamming. An AML entry was made for the ECAM GPS 1 fault message. There was no issues found with the aircraft systems. My dispatcher was post flight updated via phone once parked at the gate after shutdown.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported he and other aircraft in the ABQ area suffered loss of GPS signal; presumable due to a military jamming exercise.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The 10-9 diagram shows a displaced threshold. The 10-9a page does not show a distance under the threshold box. This is needed for the Landing Zone calculation.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported airport diagram [page 10-9] missing displaced threshold distance which is needed for landing zone calculation.
Date: 202104
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The ground crew was struggling to use the wireless headsets. Their frustrations grew as the delay got worse and more and more ground crew members wandered over to try and help. Obviously; no one was trained properly on the use of these new headsets; so they began to pound on the side of the airplane and gesture that they wanted to use hand signals. That was a 'no' from me so they began to look for a traditional [wired] headset; which for some reason was not readily available. This delay not only led to a delay in pushback; but also a delay in final weights; a takeoff delay; increased fuel burn; etc.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported communication problems with push crew after wireless headset failed and a traditional cord and head set were not available.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were operating a routine flight from ZZZ-ZZZZ on [date] in Aircraft X. Departure from the gate and taxi to Runway XX for takeoff went normally; with all required checks and checklist items being completed. Tower cleared us to line up and wait and after a minute or two; cleared us for takeoff. The First Officer was the pilot flying and upon him setting the thrust; the aural 'TAKEOFF-TRIM' warning came on. We immediately rejected the takeoff and we accepted instructions to taxi off the runway. The Tower asked what the issue was; and we replied that it was a takeoff configuration issue but that it wasn't serious. We accepted taxi back to the runway for departure again. Having had this thing happen to myself and many of my coworkers; I knew of this condition happening; and I knew that a technical notice had been published regarding false takeoff trim warnings being triggered in the green range. As such; myself and the First Officer took extra care to apply the company recommended stab trim setting procedure and we prepared the aircraft for another takeoff. The takeoff from the runway was successful.Given that the faulty 'TAKEOFF-TRIM' warning is a known issue with this aircraft that may occur even while the stab trim is set in the green range; I am not entirely sure deep down what causes the erroneous alarm. The stab was in the green range the first time we attempted to takeoff. The good thing is that there is a way to reset and recycle the stab trim so that it doesn't happen again; and that procedure is outlined in the company provided technical notice. We followed this procedure to the T and it fixed the problem.Be extra careful when setting the stab trim to the 8 position and make sure it's not on the edge of the green range.




Synopsis: ERJ Captain reported that an erroneous takeoff trim configuration warning resulted in a rejected takeoff.