elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: This aircraft was NOT Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) equipped. However; this report is submitted to draw attention to the confusion and significant task loading that CPDLC adds to preflight duties. As a Check Airman and 21 year Captain; I spent at least 25 minutes in the hotel room reading the FOM Bulletin on CPDLC. I still found it somewhat confusing because of the length of the bulletin. If the aircraft had turned out to be CPDLC capable; I felt I would need to reread the bulletin step by step in the cockpit to follow the procedure correctly. A normal Crew change during a turn obviously does NOT have this time available. I am concerned that Crews will make errors and delay flights.




Synopsis: B737 Check Airman reports that the company's documentation provided to crews concerning Controller Pilot Data Link Communications equipment needs calcification/simplifying.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on VFR Helicopter Route (known as the 'Throgs Route') in LGA Class B airspace heading Westbound on the Route; ATC Called out 'opposite direction helicopter'. While searching for traffic we thought we spotted what looked like to be a helicopter approximately at our one o'clock position. As it got closer we realized it wasn't a helicopter. Initially we thought it was a large bunch of balloons; but as it passed us we realized it was a large drone that had four separate (rotors).We reported what we saw to LGA Tower.We spotted the real helicopter that was opposite direction at about our eleven o'clock position. It posed no factor to us and passed us. The Tower asked them what they saw and they confirmed it was a Drone.  The Drone was at approximately 1;300 feet and passed off our right side about a mile away.




Synopsis: A Helicopter Pilot at 1;500 feet reported sighting a large UAV at about 1;300 feet near the VFR Helicopter Throgs Route.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing aircraft at a high altitude CTAF airport I was too high and too fast. Bounced off runway and put aircraft in wheat field. Did prop strike. No one was hurt.




Synopsis: A C-172 pilot's high altitude airport approach and landing was too high and fast resulting a bounced landing; a prop strike and settling in a wheat field.
Date: 201411
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked Pre-Departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the Passenger [Count] Form; the armed FBI agent was not in the 'Passenger of Interest' section of the PCF.  This seems to be an ongoing issue I have on my flights.  I constantly have to ask the CSR's to add the PCFA's [Persons Carrying Firearms] to the correct section of the PCF.  The CSR's also don't seem to be following procedure WRT informing all armed passengers of each other's presence namely; circling seat assignments of those that haven't been informed. It seems all the CSRs need more training WRT this issue it's getting tiresome to constantly have to report this.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain laments a continuing problem he sees with Customer Service Representatives not properly noting Persons Carrying Firearms (PCFA) on the Passenger Count Form and not briefing multiple PCFA's of the presence and location of the others.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: With traffic in the area center asked us if we had the field insight. The Captain and I both acknowledged that we did and communicated that with center. We were then given direct to the NDB at which time further instructions would be given. Just before reaching the NDB we were cleared visual for Runway 31. We rejoined our lateral track of the GPS ground track to line us up with the runway and activate the secondary flight plan in case of a balked landing. When we switched with tower he asked us if we were still on the GPS approach. We then told him that we were on a visual and approx 4 nm for the field. Several moments later we were cleared to land runway 31. As we exited the runway ground said he had a question for us. He asked ' are we allowed to do visuals since he had never seen a crew accept that clearance'. This alarmed both of us in the flight deck so we read over the notes again to find Visual Procedures N/A. We are not sure if it's for the visual published in the Jepps are if no visuals are allowed ever. The airport information needs to be clearer about visual approaches. Are they approved or are they not no matter what the circumstances.We should have just accepted the hold and waited for the IFR traffic to clear the area. We answered 'field in sight' without thinking of any issues that may come up. However; if it is found that no visuals are acceptable then it needs to say it in bold writing so there is no confusion.




Synopsis: A Flight Crew were cleared for a visual approach by Center. After landing they were asked by the Ground Controller if; 'they are allowed to do visuals since he had never seen a crew accept that clearance'. They looked over their 'notes' and found 'Visual Procedures N/A'.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We departed the gate at ORD cleared to taxi to Runway 32L; Intersection T10 via A; A7; T. While taxiing on A approaching the intersection of A7 we noted a ground vehicle approaching the same intersection. As we continued east toward taxiway A7 the ground vehicle (an employee shuttle bus) suddenly surged out onto the taxiway in an attempt to cross in front of us. I quickly realized that a collision with this vehicle was imminent and very abruptly stopped the aircraft. The bus very abruptly stopped also about one third of the way across the taxiway. Fortunately no cabin crew were injured during the stop.




Synopsis: While taxiing for takeoff at ORD an A320 Captain had to brake abruptly to avoid a collision with an employee shuttle bus crossing the taxiway ahead of them.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I met with a student and we began the preflight checks; which lasted about 1.5 hours in total. We visually verified fuel on the gauge as full and dipped the stick in the tank indicating full fuel. We began taxi and then run-up checks. We noticed fuel pressure and fuel quantity were reporting correctly.After takeoff; we did after takeoff checks and visually verified gauges were good. I vaguely remember seeing 3/4 full on the fuel tank by this point.The student [then] experienced an RPM drop. I took controls and pushed the throttle forward. The engine reacted normally and increased RPM; then shortly after reduced RPM without any throttle manipulation. I looked over and saw the fuel pressure was reducing and fuel quantity was in the yellow which indicates 1/4 tank.We were at about 4;000 ft. at this point. I squawked 7700. I called Approach who I had already been on the radio with this entire time. [We were] too far away for our glide ratio to get to an airport so I chose to land in a field. I was pitching for 73 knots which is Vg (best glide speed). We still had an operating engine at about 1400 RPM so I did not try to shut it off and restart it. At about 1;200 ft. or 1;000 ft. if memory serves me correct; the engine quit and I shut it down and secured it for landing. I applied flaps appropriately and made a soft field landing in the field. We applied brakes just in time to stop right as we made contact with a barbed fence. The fence was slightly bent; the owner came and saw as well.Our Tach time read about 0.9 so we were not up for even an hour. GPH burn is about 6 to 9 in our plane with a 24 gallon tank so we had more than enough for a full tank landing which is what we calculated before our flight.




Synopsis: DA-20 instructor pilot reported executing a successful forced landing in a field after experiencing engine problems related to fuel supply issues.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: 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; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After taking off out of TEB the Captain commanded me to put gear up. Then 400 FT asks for flaps up; LNAV; at the same time Tower told us to switch to Departure; while all that was taking place; our TCAS had a guy in front of us about a mile or two away. While we both were looking for the traffic and cleaning up the aircraft I (First Officer) did not hit the LNAV button and we did not level off at 1;500 FT. We noticed it at 1;700 and then descended to 1;500 FT. No problems were encountered.


Second narrative: We briefed the RUUDY 4 departure using LNAV/VNAV on the FMS and set the altitude alert for 2;000 FT. With flap retraction I called for MAN SPEED 200; VNAV. We received a TA. I asked the pilot not flying if he saw the traffic. With the distraction he had pushed FLCH instead of VNAV and the aircraft exceeded 1;500 FT prior to WENTZ. My excursion may have exceeded 1;700 FT. My pilot not flying has about 100 hours or less in type and it's the first jet he's flown.


Synopsis: A G-IV departed on the TEB RUUDY 4. During the climb; the newly trained First Officer; distracted by a TCAS TA; mistakenly hit Flight Level Change instead of VNAV which caused the aircraft exceed 1;500 FT before WENTZ.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff-roll and climb out; we noticed what seemed to be reduced performance for our aircraft. All crewmembers are new to the B747-8 and the aircraft was heavy; however; on previous flights a derated takeoff setting was used for heavy weights. Once the aircraft was at a safe altitude; we decided to review the takeoff performance received via ACARS and discovered the thrust setting that had been entered into the FMC was less than the actual data received (FMC input was D-TO2; ACARS takeoff data was D-TO Assumed 33). I was the International Relief Officer and was away from the flight deck performing my required duties when the takeoff data was received and entered in the FMC. During my time on the flight deck all company procedures were followed; however; after discussion both the Captain and First Officer stated they had somehow misinterpreted the data and it was entered incorrectly. I always do my best to review all pertinent information; cross check; and review any concerns with other crewmembers especially when operating as an International Relief Officer. When I returned to my seat and engines were started; we were required to use runway 34 for the -8 and had to taxi against the flow of other aircraft traffic on the airport; which was using runway 33 for departures. This kept me busy as I helped the Captain and First Officer keep things straight considering the language barrier and the number of clearances we received to taxi to the other side of the airport. Thus; I didn't get a chance to do a final review of the Takeoff data. Other than a longer takeoff roll and reduced climb rate; the takeoff was uneventful.




Synopsis: B747 pilot reported taking off with an incorrect thrust setting resulting in a longer takeoff and a slower climb out.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In the clear. Reports from ATC were occasional light chop. Not near any convective activity. Suspect large brief jolt which was completely unexpected may have been crossing aircraft wake turbulence. I did not notice the aircraft but copilot did after the fact on TCAS. Aircraft was 2000' above and at about 8 [o'clock] position and 30 miles when copilot pointed it out to me. [One of our] FA's complained of back pain after incident. Also [another] FA complained of neck pain after incident. They were up in the aisle with the drink cart when jolt happened.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported two Flight Attendants suffered minor injuries as a result of a wake turbulence encounter at FL340 apparently from another aircraft crossing their path at FL360.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal rotation and takeoff; after retracting the gear; we noticed we had a left main body gear disagreement with an 'extended gear' and a barber pole indication for the left main body gear. We accomplished the procedure for Gear Disagree; but were unable to resolve the issue. We contacted ATC; leveled off at 10;000 FT; preceded off the coast 20-25 miles and proceeded to jettison fuel in accordance with the procedure in the irregular procedure chapter. We jettisoned approximately 130;000 LBS of fuel to reduce our weight to get within normal landing weight requirements. After jettison was complete; we noticed we had a fuel imbalance of over 4;500 LBS between tank one and tank four (four being the higher of the two). We also noticed an upper EICAS message indicating that both of our fuel jettison nozzles were still indicating open. The fuel schematic diagram showed normal (only green flow lines; no magenta flow lines). We proceeded to get tank four and tank one fuel balance within limits and also verified that both fuel jettison nozzle valve switches were in the closed position. We accomplished a normal landing and normal taxi in. We notified Maintenance; both verbal and via ACARS; of the fuel imbalance indication and of the fuel jettison nozzle valve switches upper EICAS message.




Synopsis: A B747-400 left main body gear failed to retract after takeoff. Flight Manual procedures were applied without success and fuel was dumped down to maximum landing weight. Jettison valve anomalies occured that resulted in a fuel imbalance that was corrected before landing.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AMA.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON AMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During our visual approach to Runway 04 in AMA; the Approach Controller directed us to 'remain at 5;300 or above until established on final.' The reason given was to ensure separation from traffic at TDW airport (north of PANDE) since AMA Approach's primary radar was down and they were using secondary Center radar with no Mode C altitude information. The First Officer flew the visual approach in compliance with this instruction (at least in our view) by delaying descent below 5;300 FT until we were nearly aligned with final (LOC alive); although we were still in the turn to final. After rolling wings level on final; AMA Tower asked our altitude which I believe was either 4;400 FT or 4;600 FT MSL at the time. I'm not sure. We had rolled wings level about 4;800 FT - 4;900 FT. Although I was unable to talk to the Tower Controller further about this; it occurred to me that the reason for his question might have been that he thought we had descended earlier than instructed; since we were below 5;300 FT when we were first wings level on final and fully aligned with the runway.I'm concerned that confusion may exist between controllers and pilots in this situation which might result in a loss of separation event if we're not doing what they expect us to do. For pilots; we consider ourselves established on final (and able to descend in accordance with the approach procedure) when the LOC is alive; as it was in this case. However; it may be that the Controller expected us to be wings level on final and aligned with the runway before descending below 5;300. If that is what the Controller wants; a better instruction in this case might have been to cross PANDE at 5;300 then clear us for the visual approach. Since the Controller told us that their radar may be out of service for a couple more weeks; this may be something worth discussing.




Synopsis: Confusion between Approach Control and an air carrier flight crew may have resulted in a premature descent on a visual approach to Runway 04 at AMA.