elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
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: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I'm writing this report to bring attention to a problem regarding a complex MEL (or 11 MELs) on one flight; and the difficulty of insuring that all MEL procedures and restrictions have and will be complied with for a flight. We received the paperwork for our flight that had 11 MELs listed; and a 27 page MEL printout provided to us from the dispatcher. Fortunately; our flight was delayed for connecting Passengers; so we did not feel any pressure to get the flight out on time. If not for the connecting Passengers; I would have been forced to intervene and not allow the flight to depart on time until we both insured that all MEL restrictions and procedures had been complied with.The 27 page printout that we received included a ton of extra information; including MELs that were not on our Dispatch Release. This made our review of these procedures extremely difficult. The 27 page printout also could have shown the MEL information in the same order that was listed on the Dispatch Release. This would help facilitate the MEL review process. Upon my checking of these procedures and making sure that the circuit breakers were pulled and collared; and the flight restrictions noted; the Captain commented that 'It's been flying for days'. This did not give me a warm feeling that everything had been done properly. It also did not give me a feeling that he was overly concerned. These are the types of events that find themselves with multiple Pilots violated by the FAA for flying an aircraft that was not deemed airworthy. I can't imagine that our Company cannot find a software package that prints MEL information that is actually relevant to the flight. Also; this aircraft had flown through at least one Maintenance Base before our getting the aircraft. Perhaps our Mechanics could fix a broken aircraft every once in a while. I did not realize when Company acquired my Company; that I would find myself working for a Company that conducted its Maintenance like (other carrier) does. Safety does not appear to be much of a concern at this airline.




Synopsis: A pilot reported his B737-700 had 11 complex MELs with a 27 page print of MEL procedures needing to be checked or procedures needing to be completed prior to flight.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SQL.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SQL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxiway that runs from 'C Hangars' to 'Piombo' has a significant and sharp depression in asphalt near the wash rack.  The depression is about one inch deep and presents a danger when taxiing; either from direct aircraft damage; or by pilots attempting to squeeze around the area where they may hit another aircraft or equipment.  This has existed for several months and has been reported to airport management twice. In July 2015; [airport representative] stated in a conversation that it would be several years before the pavement is repaired as the County is unwilling to fund the repair and they are waiting for the FAA.  This is a simple fix that would require one bag of asphalt; yet could cause thousands of dollars of damage to aircraft.

Callback: The reporter clarified that the depression is just north east of the concrete wash pad. The depression appears to be the result of a north south trench that was excavated and refilled and paved over then settled.



Synopsis: General Aviation pilot reports there is a depression about one inch deep that presents a danger when taxiing at SQL. The depression is near the wash rack.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On RIIVR TWO arrival into LAX for Runway 25L in managed descent mode. Just outside RIIVR; ATC directed us to change runway to 24R. ATC had left us high on the arrival due to some previously induced constraints; also said all altitudes could be 'at or above'. I was the pilot flying and flew while the Captain reprogrammed the MCDU for runway 24R. We both verified the new runway; waypoints and step down altitudes. At SKOLL I noticed we were below the required 10;000 FT altitude at about 9;600 FT; and leveled off. We also noticed that the descent mode had changed at some point from a managed descent to an open descent which had allowed the aircraft to descend below the 10;000 FT constraint. After passing SKOLL I reselected managed descent and continued the approach and landing.Although we had complied quickly with all speed constraints issued by ATC; we were directed to sidestep to 24L due to insufficient spacing between us and commuter airplane that ATC had sequenced in from the north. Due to heavy radio congestion we never notified ATC nor did the controller ever query us about our altitude.Factors contributing to this situation: Last minute runway change; radio congestion; sun in our face; both pilots new in Airbus (First Officer 3 months; Captain 1 month).


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported they overshot a crossing restriction on approach to LAX when they failed to notice the autoflight mode had gone from 'managed descent' to 'open descent.' Crew cited a late runway change as contributory.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PBI.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While being vectored for the ILS 10L at PBI; we experienced a radar altitude indication of zero; first intermittently; then continuously. As a result; the airplane's EGPWS system sounded multiple alerts and alarms (TERRAIN; PULL UP; SINK RATE; DON'T SINK; and TOO LOW: GEAR) continuously during the vector to final and during the final approach itself. The error began at a location approximately 20 NM northwest of the PBI; immediately after turning to heading 210 on a left base for Runway 10L outside of WILBA Intersection; and continued through interception and descent until approximately 2 miles inside of ZISUR (final approach fix) at approximately 1;400 feet.During this time; the radio altimeter on the Captain's side read zero; first intermittently then continuously; while the First Officer's radio altimeter read correctly. The PIC reports that the issue has occurred previously; though not for such a long duration. The issue only occurs at PBI (never other airports); only for Runway 10L (never 28R); only on left base (never right); and only when being vectored out to or outside of WILBA (never while on a tighter visual approach). This suggests a cause that is local to the area north of the WILBA Intersection.Company maintenance; Chief Pilot; and ATC were advised of this and previous occurrences.The alarms represent a significant distraction during a critical phase of flight; and in IMC the conflicting RA data could be a threat to safety.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported aircraft problems possibly associated with 5G interference inbound to PBI.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DAL.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C DAL
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for a night; visual approach to Runway 31L at DAL from a left base just outside downtown.  ILS was tuned up and also loaded in FMS with extension off of JAKID.  First Officer overcorrected for overshooting final which positioned aircraft left of centerline.  Received 'Caution Obstacle;' and corrected flight path by correcting to centerline and continued visual approach with downtown (Obstacle Alert) clearly in sight and aircraft was in a safe position for landing.  Stable with proper runway alignment at 1;000 feet.  Crew should have made a go-around due to receiving the GPWS caution at night; regardless of being visual with obstacle IAW Company procedures. Increase spatial situational awareness with the cross-cockpit turn to final by maintaining a better scan both inside and out.  Never get complacent on a visual approach.  Solicit information from Captain if needed.


Second narrative: We were cleared for a night visual approach to 31L in DAL. We were on a left base just outside of downtown. 31L was tuned in and centerline extended off of JAKID. When the First Officer started to turn final a slight tailwind was pushing him. He stated he was correcting to final which I said was no problem but he overcorrected and put us a little close to downtown where we got a Caution Obstacle. The First Officer corrected his flight path and corrected back to centerline. We had downtown clearly in sight and continued the visual approach stable at 1;000 feet. Really hate that we did not perform a Company procedure mandatory go-around. Just because you've got downtown clearly in sight; you just don't know. Per Company procedures; we should have gone around no questions asked! Added 10 minutes to our flight and come back around. We can't be relaxed even on a visual approach. I plan on being more vigilant and keeping a better scan.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reports an EGPWS 'Caution Obstacle' warning during a night visual approach to Runway 31L due to an overshoot to the left. The flying First Officer corrects to centerline and continues to a normal landing in violation of company SOP.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying a scheduled flight and started to experience a loud clunking noise that seemed to be in the front of the aircraft. Associated with the noise was also a shaking of the aircraft every time we had the noise. We were unsure of what the problem was with no indications from the EICAS. We decided to divert to an airport we were right over the top of. We elected to declare an emergency because we did not know the state of the aircraft or what might have been causing the problem. We landed with no more abnormalities. The threats were that it was completely unexpected. We went from almost no workload up at cruise to a very high workload. Plus using an airport not on our flight plan for a diversion.




Synopsis: The crew of an EMB-145LR in cruise flight experienced a loud external clunking noise of undetermined origin accompanied by a shaking of the aircraft. An emergency was declared and as a precaution they diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ADS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ADS
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We landed from a visual approach to runway 15 at ADS. The tower instructed us to turn left at the next available taxiway--I believe it was F--'Cross the hold-short line onto Alpha and contact ground'. (The taxiway clearance at ADS is non-standard and they have moved the hold-short lines to the very edge of taxiway A; the parallel taxiway. You have to taxi onto A to clear the runway). We called ground as we turned onto the taxiway. Ground instructed us to; 'Taxi to parking via alpha.' As I approached the hold-short line and began a left turn on to taxiway A; my first officer asked; 'Is he giving way to us?' I looked over and saw a Bonanza appear from our right. It had been out of my view until then. I applied the brakes more abruptly than I would have preferred with passengers on board. The Bonanza never slowed down and continued past us to the north along taxiway A. In the mean-time another airplane had begun its takeoff run on runway 15 while I was still in the runway safety area. (Runway side of the hold short line) I crossed the line behind the Bonanza and continued my taxi. It is my assumption that when the tower tells me to turn on A that other airplanes will have been instructed to give way to me so that I can clear the runway. In this case it resulted in both taxiway and runway incursions.




Synopsis: B200 pilot reported he had to brake 'abruptly' to avoid a collision with another aircraft on a taxiway he was cleared to join; at ADS. It is unclear if this is a pilot or ATC error.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A Bonanza checked on my frequency about 10 miles prior to my airspace. I had just finished a pretty busy session and aircraft from that session were still in my airspace. I 'rogered' the aircraft and gave them the current altimeter. I went on with other duties; shipping; climbing and descending aircraft. Just prior to the event I was coordinating an inbound with ZZZ1 Tower and discussing a release that Tower was trying to get off the ground. The focus of the traffic was solely on the west side of the sector. The Bonanza was on the east side of the sector all by himself. Shortly after I came off the line with ZZZ1; the Bonanza reported a near miss and was questioning what happened. I focused my attention to the aircraft and noticed a transponder code passing underneath the Bonanza indicating an altitude of 9;800 FT. I advised the IFR aircraft that it appeared to be a fire fighting aircraft and gave the pilot the number to the Center. The pilot reported that he guessed the closest point was 300 FT and X number laterally. We were operating on ERAM and Conflict Alert alerted after the two aircraft were all ready passed. I never saw the traffic and did not issue a traffic advisory. The area the IFR aircraft was operating in is an area of known non-RADAR about 11;000 FT MSL and below. It is possible the transponder code was not displayed on the scope until right near the time of the event; which explains why Conflict Alert was delayed or did not activate until after they passed. I can not confirm that however because I did not see if the transponder code was displayed prior to the event or not. Something we talk about all the time as controllers is not to focus in. Keep your scan going around the entire sector. Do not glance over aircraft who are all by themselves. Also; better RADAR coverage would definitely improve safety in that area. Our Filters are set at 6;500 FT and we rarely see aircraft at 10;000 FT in that area.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a conflict event between IFR traffic that was handed off; but still in another controllers area; and unknown/unreported VFR traffic apparently participating in fire fighting activities. The reporter listed a RADAR coverage problem that may have contributed to the event.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: wake turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the OLAAA 1 arrival into LAX we experienced wake turbulence caused by [a preceding heavy jet].  We were just getting vectors for the visual 25L.  The wake turbulence caused a rolling motion to the right where the airplane [gave] the Bank Angle warning and the autopilot kicked off.  I was the Pilot Monitoring and reached simultaneously with the Pilot Flying (Captain) towards the yoke.  We advised ATC and they gave us vectors and stopped our descent.  We both thought it a [was] good idea to advise the passengers we were under control. We both thought it a [was] good idea to fly slightly above glide slope. It was VMC conditions. Whenever a B737 is following something bigger; we should be advised by ATC especially when we are that close and coming into an arrival [on] radar vectors from different directions.




Synopsis: B737-900 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival into LAX in trail of a heavy jet.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Several personnel present in the break room with Supervisor. Supervisor brought to [our] attention the decline in headset usage. Supervisor stated it was SOP. It was then brought to Supervisor's attention that we are in a state of emergency with the COVID-19 virus pandemic. It was then brought to Supervisor's attention that the microphone area was not able to be cleaned by a wipe. We questioned the alcohol content; and what the wipes kill. It was brought up the hearing lesson states you can wear either ear plugs; or the over-the-ears with cups. The headset lesson states that you should not wear ear plugs with the wireless headsets. There is no volume control with the wireless headsets; only noise cancelling - to which it doesn't do a great job. The wireless headsets are required to be worn during arrival and dispatch. To which at some point a changeover would be necessary which gives a break in hearing protection when switching between PPE [Personal Protection Equipment]. It was brought up [company safety rule] due to the headsets giving you a lack of peripheral vision; situational awareness; and a loud amplification of outside noise. Also; as a pushback driver I've had to ask the flight deck numerous times on numerous occasions what they said over the radio to me as I could not hear what they were saying over the 2 wingwalkers. It was brought up that we only do a straight pushback in ZZZ. To the point on outside noise Supervisor stated that headsets numbered [3 headsets] had some hearing feature; but Supervisor did not know how to use it. I then asked if Supervisor had ever worn these headsets; and Supervisor stated 'No.' Supervisor then proceeded to walk away from the conversation on the shop floor.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported problems associated with sharing headsets.