elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: clear; 20
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DVT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Excursion Taxiway; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: In being given instruction to taxi from Ramp 1 to Runway 7R; the instructions were to enter Delta taxiway to [Taxiway] D4 then to C3 and hold short. Taxiway Delta is a newly constructed taxiway with a vehicle roadway just prior to Taxiway Delta. In executing the turn; the vehicle access road was mistaken for Taxiway Delta. Immediately upon realizing this error; I contacted DVT Ground Control and advised them of the situation. I was given the choice of remaining where I was and be re-positioned by ground personnel or taxi around to the north side of the airport via the vehicle access road and proceed normally from the north runway (Runway 7L). While I was deciding; the Ground Controller stated that aircraft had been previously towed on this very road in the past. Bearing this in mind; I chose to taxi around the vehicle access road; ultimately discovering it to be too narrow and resulting to the necessity of ground personnel having to dismantle all the remaining signs; so as to allow me to complete this route and arrive at the [Runway] 7L run-up area; after which I was given instructions to proceed normally to the hangar area on the south field; which occurred without further incident.It should be noted that in reviewing this incident; that the vehicle access road and Taxiway Delta are immediately adjacent to each other and if additional signage were present to further clarify this potential hazard; it would be an important addition to improve safe taxi at this airport.




Synopsis: Light aircraft pilot reported confusing signage at DVT airport led to a taxi deviation down a vehicle roadway.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
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: While I was preparing to wing walk a plane into [the gate] a vehicle started driving into the gate area.  The vehicle was heading straight towards me until the driver appears to have seen me and jerked the vehicle back. As the vehicle went by; the young man was texting or doing something on his phone while driving. This unsafe behavior could have easily led to an accident or injury and is inappropriate.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp employee reported a near-collision with a ground vehicle while he was wing walking an aircraft into the gate.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After starting both engines; flight control check was initiated; during aileron travel check to the left; resistance was felt in the yoke around 40 degrees of travel; and I had to force it the last 5-10 degrees to the stop; full deflection was noted left on the MFD. During the right aileron check; travel to the stop was normal; however inboard spoilers did not show fully deployed on the MFD. I had the First Officer check the aileron travel with his yoke; the travel was normal from stop to stop in both directions with no resistance to the left; and with full deflection noted in both directions. I called Dispatch and had them connect me with Maintenance. After talking with Maintenance we returned to the gate. During checks with Maintenance back at the gate my First Officer verified visually that the spoilers on the right-hand wing were not coming up fully during operation of the Captain's yoke during full right-hand travel as compared to the full left deflection. Back at the gate it was interesting to note that after the hydraulics were turned off; and no pressure in the system the resistance prior to the stop in the left aileron travel of the Captain's yoke was still there. My concern is that with no hydraulic pressure on the systems the problem was still there; and with the hydraulics on the First Officer wheel travel from aileron stop to stop was normal with full deflection indications.




Synopsis: EMB170 Captain reports an unsatisfactory aileron check after starting both engines using the Captain's yoke; but the check is satisfactory using the First Officer's yoke. Flight returns to the gate for maintenance; where the flight control anomalies are confirmed visually.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My flight was arriving to SFO via the FMS Bridge Visual approach to RWY 28R. Everything about the arrival and initial part of the approach was mostly normal; including altitudes and speeds issued from ATC. However; as the flight was given a landing clearance to RWY 28R and we continued below approximately 1000 feet AGL; it became clear that the takeoff clearance issued to the B747 holding short of RWY 28R was going to be a VERY tight separation between the two flights. I had briefed and was configured for Flaps 25; slowing towards target speed from the assigned 180 KIAS until SAMUL. As soon as I heard the Tower issue a takeoff clearance for the other aircraft; I decided it was going to be very tight and directed the First Officer to select Flaps 30 and we slowed to the new; lower target speed. I was still concerned that the departing aircraft would not be airborne before we would be touching down; so I directed the First Officer to query the Tower for its intentions for us. The Tower responded with something like; 'That's up to you.' It came across as rather sarcastic under the circumstances. We had another aircraft almost directly abeam us landing on RWY 28L; and the go-around instructions for the FMS Bridge Visual approach are basically to fly runway heading to 3000 feet. This would have put us directly on top of the departing aircraft! I continued the approach knowing that in the event the preceding aircraft did not become airborne in time for us to land on RWY 28R; a breakout turn to the right at very low altitude would be necessary to avoid flying directly over the departing aircraft. This seemed to be far too close [amount] of separation from the Tower; and potentially very unsafe. The Tower controller's seemingly cavalier attitude came across as unprofessional and not appropriate to the seriousness of the situation.




Synopsis: B757 Captain expressed concern with ATC procedures during approach to SFO that limited the options for runway separation during landing or a safe go-around should one become necessary.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon entering the hold after a go-around from Runway 4 at HHF; it was determined that no ATC facility could be reached. The flight continued in the hold; but climbed to 10;000 FT in order to reach Albuquerque Center. Numerous attempts to reach the Center were attempted at several lower altitudes. Not until 10;000 FT was Center able to be reached. There were no known traffic problems throughout the climb as referenced through the TCAS system. The flight continued to AMA uninterrupted and landed. Identification; no event was noted by ATC but the report is filed as a deficiency of the missed approach ATC communication problem. Cause; No contact with ATC could be obtained at the missed approach altitude. Suggestions; either this approach needs an alternate missed approach procedure or different communications procedures are needed.




Synopsis: Civil Jet on a go around from Runway 4 at HHF experienced a loss of contact with ATC; the reporter suggesting amended communications procedures with ATC.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
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: We were assigned the LGA SID with Whitestone Climb. At the gate; I asked for PDC early to review the departure but failed to catch a small font note at top of page that is listed as 3 in a list of at least [6] notes concerning the departure. The note stated 'aircraft cleared over a certain list of fixes had to hold 250 KTS until 11;000.' We were very light and climbed through 11;000 FT quickly and neither of us were aware of a speed deviation. However; when we were at 15;000; ATC requested we slow to 250 KTS and then the First Officer (new back in the seat after 8 years off) read the note. I had studied the departure page and missed this completely!




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports exceeding 250 KTS prior to 11;000 FT on the LGA 4 departure; as specified by note 3.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout passing through 7;000 FT; we received an advisory on ECAM left engine VIB (N1) was flashing with a value of 3.8. We leveled at 10;000 FT contacted Maintenance Control and ran Engine Vibration (N1) >_ 3 units. The (N2) vibration indicated xx. All of the rest of engine indications were normal. With throttle lever movement; left engine N1 vibration continued to flash in the range of 4.0 to 3.8. We did not feel much aircraft vibration at 10;000 FT. Since the vibration indication continued to flash between 3.8 and 4.0; the length of our scheduled flight to our foreign destination; the proximity to a Maintenance Station; and the statement in the checklist - If engine parameters normal; continue engine operation at normal or reduced thrust level; at pilot's discretion - and that we did not know what was going on in the engine; we decided to accomplish an air turn back and leave the left engine running at reduced thrust. Considering that we were well above landing weight minimums; we would have to stay airborne for about 3 hours to burn off enough fuel to get below the minimum weight; and the abnormal ECAM engine vibration indication remained between 3.8 and 4.0; we declared an emergency and returned. We accomplished the Overweight Landing checklist since we were well above landing weight. We attempted to start the APU per the Overweight Landing checklist but it would not start and it would not start on the ground after landing. On descent; we detected airframe vibration that increased as our altitude decreased. We continued left engine operation. At touchdown our vertical speed was 200. Taxi in uneventful.




Synopsis: An A300 engine VIB ECAM alerted 3.8 during climb; so after troubleshooting; considering the flight time ahead and the proximity to Maintenance. The flight crew declared an emergency and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201507
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working within envelope; a B777 due to hanger on the adjacent gate. After pushback; [the taxi crew]overpowered engines; sharply turning away from the gate onto the taxiway. This resulted in a empty LD3; which was in process of being filled with bags; lifting  off its secured carrier and blown to the ground. It rolled knocking me to the ground; left side of head; shoulder and hip; landing on my right; pinning to a stationary cart which contained bags. The resulting incident causing myself to be sent to the ER.




Synopsis: A ramp person reports being struck by an LD3 container that is blown over by a B777 being taxied by a maintenance crew from the adjacent gate.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I notified a few days after my flight that [Company] sent two passenger close out notices. We must have missed the second notice and used the first notice for our takeoff performance calculations. The second notice is the one that was correct I was told. We used the passenger numbers from the first notice. We must have been distracted by other preflight duties when the second notice came in. Maybe the company could make some sort of priority message when the ACARS gives us notices.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a few days after a flight he realized that they did not have the correct passenger close out.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach and landing data was requested and reviewed for both flaps 30 and 40 for Runways X and XX. Although both flap settings yielded acceptable data a flaps 40 visual to XX was briefed by the Captain; I was F/O (First Officer) and PM (pilot monitoring). We received clearance to fly the RNAV Visual to XX and were stable and configured at flaps 30 with Before Landing Checklist complete above 1000 feet. At about 400 feet I realized we were at flaps 30 instead of flaps 40 as briefed. I mentioned the discrepancy to the Captain and he called for flaps 40; then immediately flaps 30. I moved the flap handle but don't believe the flaps actually moved because it was only a momentary selection. The Captain briefed we were legal/safe with flaps 30; I agreed and he immediately called for me to re-complete the Before Landing checklist which was accomplished and we landed flaps 30 safely and without incident.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported confusion on the planned landing flap setting.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Momentarily exceeded flap speed for flaps one due to turbulent air in the area.While descending and slowing shortly after a moderate turbulence event the flaps one speed was briefly exceeded.Give more of an airspeed buffer in turbulent weather.


Second narrative: FO was flying pilot. While descending into ZZZZ and deviating around convective activity; FO checked airspeed and called for flaps 1. Shortly thereafter; speed increased into the zipper. Maybe 5 knots but no more than 10.FO had not flown in a long time; lacked confidence and called for flaps way too early in an effort to get down and slow down.FO needs to fly more.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported turbulence and a flap overspeed. One crew member reported the flying pilot had not flown for an extended period of time.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AFW.Tower, TX
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D AFW
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was in an ILS approach to RWY 16L. A VFR aircraft that departed 52F airport westbound was not talking to Tower. The VFR aircraft was just south of WIGZU at 2;300 feet. Aircraft X was also at 2;300 feet. Aircraft X reported the aircraft and said that was close. Aircraft X also stated that he thought that the VFR aircraft never saw them. This continues to be an issue with aircraft departing 52F airport westbound. It is becoming a daily occurrence. We have attempted pilot outreach with 52F airport and yet aircraft continue to cross westbound at 2;500 feet at our final approach fix. The Class D airspace should be extended to include the FAF. This would at least require for the pilots to contact the Tower to cross this area so that we could issue traffic advisories.




Synopsis: AFW Tower Controller reported an NMAC between an aircraft under their control and a VFR aircraft not under ATC Control.