elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were proceeding from TREMO to KIPPR waypoint when ATC asked where we were going. We said KIPPR. He said he did not show that on our flight plan; then cleared us direct to USIRE. Upon further review; we made a mistake. The waypoint on our flight plan we were supposed to be going to was KIMMR. The two points are not far from each other and basically we weren't terribly far off course; but off course we were. Unsure what caused it. Clearly we made a mistake. KIPPR and KIMMR are similar enough that during waypoint check I didn't speak clearly enough and/or the First Officer misheard. Either way; we both missed it. We already have procedures in place to prevent this so I don't have any new suggestions.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being off course; because the crew had mistakenly used KIPPR; instead of KIMMR.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival and parking at gate the jetway driver asked me to open my window because she needed to talk to me. The jetway was not moved toward the plane. I opened the window and she told me ramp had to offload 30 bags out of the aft cargo pit before any passengers could deplane because the plane would hit the tail. I had never heard of anything like this in training or that this was standard operation for the 737-900 ER. They off loaded the bags then the passengers with no incident. I decided to call the dispatcher who was working the flight. Dispatcher said that they had been trained that this was a common procedure. I did not agree since I just finished IOE and in my 2 months of training never heard anything about this. I asked [Dispatcher] to please get the load planner on the phone with us; they did and joined the call. He said that the departure ramp had misloaded the aircraft and that there was a threat of a Tail Tip on the ground. I asked if we were in CG limits for flight and they replied yes. I still cannot wrap my head around how we could have been in the air and not on the ground. The load planner said that they called ahead to our destination to advise them of this threat and that we should have been informed of this situation before arrival. We never received any notification of this situation prior to parking at the gate.


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


Synopsis: A B737-900 arrival deplaning was delayed because the departure airport ramp personnel misloaded 30 bags in the aft hold which may have resulted in the aircraft tail tipping had the passengers deplaned before baggage removal.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: In Mexico City; on Runway 5R; there are no runway centerline markings from 1;000 feet beyond the landing threshold to 3;000 feet beyond the landing threshold.  The runway centerline markings are faded and only visible when on top of them from 3;000 feet beyond the landing threshold to Taxiway G where we turned off after landing.  A NOTAM needs to be issued to warn pilots.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported MMMX runway centerline markings are faded and suggested that a NOTAM would be appropriate.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TPA
Second aircraft: Saab 340 Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I taxied the SF34 to Runway 19L via Taxiway C. A few minutes later the B737 called ready to taxi. I issued taxi instructions to the B737 to Runway 19R via C; B8; B and V Taxiway. When I issued this; I had the B737 insight; I did not see any other aircraft in his way. The SF34 that I taxied; I did not see; I assumed he had already departed. The SF34 was actually on Taxiway C; but he was obstructed from my view by the TDW display monitor. I didn't move from the spot that I was standing at because to my right was the console and to my left was my chair that I offered to other personnel. The B737 assumed that I had instructed the SF34 to give way to him; and began to taxi out as instructed. The SF34 continued to taxi. The B737 had to stop and give way to the SF34. I could have moved around and better scanned the taxi route prior to issuing the taxi clearance. I also recommend that the TDW display be lowered; so that the view of a major taxiway and the main entering/exiting point for taxing aircraft is not obstructed.


Second narrative: Pushed out of gate. I received clearance from Ground Control to taxi via Taxiway C; B8; B; M; V to Runway 19R. There was no mention of any traffic to follow or be aware of. Just prior to taxing onto Taxiway C from the ramp heading northeast; I noticed a twin engine turboprop aircraft on my right taxiing north on C. It did not appear that we would be able to get in front of him nor was the turboprop aircraft slowing down; so I told the Captain to stop; which he immediately did. The Captain talked to Ground Control to ensure once again what our taxi clearance was and to inform Ground about the turboprop. Our taxi clearance was as previously received. The Captain checked with the flight attendants to ensure they were okay. He informed me that they were okay.


Synopsis: TPA Controller experienced a developing ground conflict when failing to observe a taxiing aircraft.  The reporter listed tower equipment placement and not moving around as contributing factors.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Legacy 450/500
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying the first leg of the day which was a ferry flight. Everything was standard and we were issued a descent clearance from FL350 to FL240 to try to get out of some light turbulence as we started down we were issued descend via the published STAR.I started to increase our rate of descent to try and stay ahead of the VNAV because the difference in our altimeter setting was 30.41 from 29.92. As I started to increase the altimeter to 30.41 our VNAV path dropped below us;  so I increased the rate of descent more and deployed the speed brake. I have never used the speed brakes in this airplane as they were a fairly new modification.I captured the VPATH and the airplane was flying the descent and the indication in the Aircraft Flight Control Systems (AFCS) was a magenta NAV and a magenta VPTH. In order to maintain the speed that was requested on the arrival I had to leave the speed brake deployed and as the rate of descent finally started to arrest a few miles from the fix then I closed the speed brakes. This action seemed to cause the airplane to pitch down even more and as I looked at the altitude the airplane was still pitching down through 11;000 feet which was the mandatory altitude so I quickly disconnected the Autopilot and started to correct for the deviation.We were still able to make the crossing at 11;000 feet. The captain and I discussed the matter after we arrived and decided that the speed brake retraction caused the automation to misjudge the rate of descent required for the VPTH and that in the future changes with the deployment or retraction of the speed brakes should be made at least ten miles prior to the fix in order to assure the crossing altitude would not be a problem.




Synopsis: Embraer Legacy 450/500 pilot reported the auto flight altitude capture feature failed to level aircraft.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria 7ECA
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was an instructional/checkout flight in the FBO's Citabria 7GCBC. I was sitting in the front seat and my instructor/check pilot was in the back seat. [After we] were cleared to taxi to the run-up area for RWY by ground control I had some trouble maintaining directional control while taxiing. When we got to the run-up area; my instructor exited the airplane to look at the tail wheel. He was out of the plane before I could advise ground control of our intent. My instructor discovered that the tail wheel was flat. As my instructor was coming back into the plane; Ground Control advised that; in the future; no one should exit the airplane once in the movement area without advising the tower/ground and without receiving permission. There were no other planes in the run-up area.I apologized to the tower/ground controller and nothing more was said. My instructor advised the controller that we would need to shut down and probably be towed back to the ramp. He asked the controller to contact the FBO by telephone; which the controller did; and he then advised us that the FBO would send a mechanic out to the plane.From my perspective; I have always contacted tower/ground before exiting a plane or if something unusual results during the run-up. In this case I did not follow my normal procedures because I was with an instructor and I deferred to him. This is a good example of what not to do. Just because an instructor was present; I should not have abdicated control of the situation to him. I was PIC and should have advised him to remain in the airplane until I spoke with the tower/ground controller.




Synopsis: When the instructor/check out pilot exited the aircraft at the run-up area to inspect the condition of the Citabria's tailwheel due to directonal control issues on taxi out; Ground Control remonstrated the reporter/pilot being checked as to the need to coordinate any such egress in a movement area with ATC.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff several warnings occurred including gear disagree. The decision was made to return for an overweight landing; emergency was declared. It was determined that the aircraft and runway could safely accommodate the overweight landing. We were relieved that the landing gear came down and locked. A normal landing was made; taxied to gate; passengers and bags were transferred to another aircraft and flight continued.


Second narrative: I was the pilot not flying. Shortly after takeoff; Captain called for gear up. As soon as I placed the gear up several warnings/messages existed on the EICAS screen; 'gear disagree';'auto spoiler'; etc.


Synopsis: When the landing gear handle was raised after takeoff; a B757-200 EICAS alerted GEAR DISAGREE and AUTO SPOILER. An emergency was declared; the gear lowered normally and the flight returned to land overweight.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in turning back with the number 2 engine out; blocked Aircraft Y trying to check on from approach who was not radar identified climbing to 12000 feet. Aircraft Z was about 10 miles out in front of the Aircraft Y not on my frequency climbing to 12000 feet inside of Approach airspace. When Aircraft Y called initial check on was that he was responding to a TA climb. So I radar identified him and then climbed him to his filed altitude. Immediately after Aircraft Z checked on and advised that someone just flew past him.  I told Aircraft Y that I had no idea what Nassau was doing since it was their airspace but told him to maintain 11000 feet so he would be separated from Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y was on an incorrect code. During this time an aircraft A was 8 miles and parallel with Aircraft Y so I could see Approach was having difficulty separating their planes. Fix the RADAR feed so I can see aircraft departing Nassau. As it is right now I cannot see aircraft below 9000 feet which would have prevented this error.  We did have a radar feed in their old system but since they went to the new system we can't see anything and it is really dangerous. I can't believe this vital piece of equipment was overlooked.




Synopsis: ZMA Center Controller reported managing aircraft conflicts caused by difficulty coordinating with adjacent airspace.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed for a VFR flight out to the [usual] practice area. We picked up a local IFR clearance so we could climb VFR-on-top and get out of the clouds so we could complete the maneuvers that the specific lesson required in the Commercial Single-Engine add on course. We eventually found a large hole in the clouds and decided to cancel our local IFR clearance and fly VFR. We proceeded with our maneuvers and once finished we contacted approach because we wanted to get a local IFR clearance back into [home airport] and shoot the ILS 23R back in. They proceeded to give us a heading and vectors for the approach. We then proceeded to enter IMC conditions with the thought that we had picked up a Local IFR clearance. Several minutes later we asked for a different altitude and the controller proceeded to say VFR altitude your discretion. I then realized that there was a miscommunication between the controller and our aircraft and that we hadn't actually picked up a Local IFR clearance. The clouds were patchy; so we held our altitude and heading and once we found a hole and could see the ground we immediately made corrective action to exit IMC and regain VMC which we did in a very safe manner. I believe there was a miscommunication between the Controller and our aircraft and that this easily could have been prevented if both ATC and our aircraft would have questioned each other because we were both aware of the weather at the time of the incident. In order to prevent a recurrence of this event; I should from now on ask the ATC controller what kind of clearance I am receiving and furthermore have him state that you are receiving an IFR clearance.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot in a SR20 reported that after providing instruction in VFR conditions; attempted to request a local IFR clearance to the home airport with broken cloud cover. After entering instrument conditions; the instructor realized that due to a miscommunication with ATC; an IFR clearance had not been received.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While climbing out of CLT on BOBZY4 SID; we noticed a TCAS TA aircraft descending on our current flight path. We had just flown into CLT on a STAR that resulted in a TCAS RA; and could detect that at our current rate of climb; that this would become a TCAS RA event if no action on our part was taken. The FO (First Officer) was flying and elected to decrease our rate of climb by decreasing the angle of attack. This resulted in an 'excessive speed' below 10;000 feet. The resulting decrease in pitch increased our airspeed to 280 kts before we were able to reduce the power enough to slow back down to the maximum of 250 kts below 10;000 feet. We did not get a TCAS RA due to the FO's actions; and I would have done the same thing had I been flying the plane. In debriefing this situation; it seemed apparent to both of us that this must be a daily occurrence within the confines of the CLT SIDs and STARs. There is only a 1000 foot separation between the altitudes of the STAR and SID that we flew; with very narrow horizontal separation. With an aircraft climbing out at a normal rate of climb; and another aircraft descending on the STAR; it would seem that this would be a regularly occurring situation within the CLT approach/departure airspace.


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


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported exceeding 250 knots below 10;000 feet while departing CLT to avoid inbound traffic.