elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: ELB / ELT
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Installing new ELTs and following the paperwork and others have done the same. The problem is the paperwork tells you how to remove and reinstall but states that you turn off the ELT and make sure it's off before sending it to the vender.  WHEN INSTALLING IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT TURNING THE SWITCH TO THE 'ARMED' OR ' ON' POSITION!  SO IT LEAVES YOU WITH INSTALLING IT AND LEAVING IT IN THE 'OFF' POSITION PER THE PAPERWORK!  THIS MEANS WE HAVE PLANES FLYING AROUND WITH THE ELT'S in the OFF position. Which is per the paperwork! This is not a good position to be in if they are needed and the switch is OFF per Company  paperwork.




Synopsis: Technician reported that references for removing and installing the ELT have no step for ensuring that the ELT is switched to on when complete.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: There still seems to be confusion on the FD (Flight Deck) door entry/exit procedures on the Airbus. FA's (Flight Attendants) received a bulletin stating that the procedure matches the Boeing procedure fleet wide. That information isn't aligning with Airbus procedure. I was the A and was told to stay in there during the times the Captain and FO (First Officer) were stepping out.Please align procedures with both work groups and clarify whether there are in fact fleet wide procedures.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that the cockpit security procedure for the Boeing and Airbus aircraft does not match.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Tower, CO
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Manuals; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on the frequency for the left runway. I issued a landing clearance and issued parallel traffic which was Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y checked on and I received a low altitude alert. I was issuing the low altitude alert; calling traffic about Aircraft X and issuing control instructions as Aircraft Y started going through their final all simultaneously. As Aircraft Y was now directly under Aircraft X I knew it was safe as Aircraft X was more than a 1000 foot above Aircraft Y. Not knowing what Aircraft Y was going to do; I elected to send Aircraft X around and issued those instructions. Aircraft Y maneuvered as instructed for the correct runway. Aircraft X was vectored for another approach.Adhere to Letter of Agreement to off load foreign carriers to a runway complex without conflicting traffic. A final controller should ensure that foreign carriers; unfamiliar pilots; or anyone in question comply with instructions for final approach course intercept before communications transfer when there is possible conflicting traffic.




Synopsis: DEN Tower Controller observed an aircraft overshoot the final approach course and had to issue parallel runway traffic go-around instructions.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We landed from ZZZ on Runway XXL and taxied to [the] gate. Upon entering the ramp we were on high alert for ground traffic as this is DFW. Nearing the roadway prior to [the] gate the First Officer and myself cleared left and right and commented on a baggage cart approaching from the left side. I slowed down as he made no effort to stop; as required; he in fact sped up to cut in front of us. The ramp crew working the gate were as shocked as we were. We called Operations with the tractor number and were told they'd called their Supervisor. We were taxiing at a speed that let me stop the aircraft without any issue.This occurs on a daily basis at DFW. The ramp is extremely busy and requires everyone to be alert while operating close to the terminal. This driver was not paying attention to aircraft movement.Enforce the rules for everyone driving a vehicle on the airport SITA area. Pull this person's privileges to drive and make them earn it again.




Synopsis: Captain reported stopping abruptly to avoid a baggage tug that refused to yield to his aircraft taxiing to the gate.
Date: 201907
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing; the main wheels touch down; when all of a sudden I had wind gust that made me lose control on the runway. The aircraft was skipping from left and right until it drifted me to the left side of the runway until I came to a complete stop at the VASI lights.




Synopsis: Pilot of unstated aircraft reported a runway excursion due to loss of control during landing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Stall Warning System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through 3000 ft. on visual approach to ZZZ; at 20 KIAS above the foot; slats and speedbrakes extended. Crew received a transient stick shaker on both yokes for about two seconds. All flight parameters appeared to be well outside the stall envelope.There has been a higher than usual volume of these [stick shakers] on recent flights. They are a distractor during critical phases of flight. Would like to hear some feedback as to what was the cause. Last explanation was a slat rig problem. Aircraft system malfunction.

Callback: Reporter stated the slats were out; not transitioning; when the uncommanded stick shakers have occurred. Most of the stick shaker events have happened at low altitudes during arrival descent; some during climbout; but no adverse rolls that would help determine if the left or right wing was an issue. The events are very distracting and frustrating because Maintenance believes the issue involves slat rigging; but the events continue to occur.



Synopsis: A pilot reports experiencing transient stick shaker events on both yokes for about two seconds on a wide bodied Douglas aircraft during low altitude descents with slats and speedbrakes extended.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: 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: Preflight: Both fuel tanks were full and fuel sump was clear; no water or debris. Completed preflight checklist. Oil on the right engine was a little above 5 Qts. Left engine was around 5.75 Qts. Rest of preflight was normal. Upon starting all engine indications were reading normal. We went through the checklists and everything was normal. Run-up was completed with all normal indications nothing abnormal was indicated. We taxied to Runway XXL completed the before takeoff checklist. Called tower and said we were ready for takeoff. We were cleared for takeoff Runway XXL. Taxied onto the runway; stopped went to throttles 2;000 checked engine instruments everything was in the green. Released breaks and went full throttles and started our ground roll. Airspeed came alive; at 75 kts we rotated. We had a positive rate of climb; no runway remaining; and were below 109 kts. Brought the gear up. I pitched for 88kts and looked at my gauges and saw the oil pressure indicator in the red and became concerned for the safety of us because of the high oil pressure reading. I told [my instructor] about it and started to pitch to 100 kts prior to 500 ft AGL to see if it would lower the indication; it did not; and started my turn to 160 degrees as directed by ATC. I told [my instructor] to call ATC so we could come back and land; because I was concerned for the safety of the flight. ATC told me to turn to the left to enter left downwind for runway XXL. We made the turn to left downwind Runway XXL and were told by ATC that we are number one for landing Runway XXL and were cleared to land. Then we were told by ATC that Runway YY was also available to us to land on if we needed it. We came abeam of the numbers and started the gear down checklist and that was completed without an issue. I made the left base turn and pitched for 88 Kts. and started my approach to Runway XXL. I landed on Runway XXL with no issues and taxied off and was told by ATC to not stop and make a right turn onto taxiway and contact ground. Then we contacted ground and taxied to the FBO and completed the shutdown checklist and called Flight OPS about returning to land at ZZZ due to safety concerns.




Synopsis: PA44 pilot detected high engine oil pressure after takeoff and an immediate return was requested. An uneventful landing ensued.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GFK.Tower, ND
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Student and I were doing landings on [Runway] 27L before our departure to the practice area at GFK. On one of the patterns; (I believe on the downwind); Tower told us that we needed to keep it a touch and go for jet traffic. We acknowledged but no information was given to where the jet was or what runway it was inbound for. I was looking for the traffic as we moved to short final and did not see it visually or on ADS-B. After completing a shaky soft field landing with a new student; we kept it rolling and at rotation; Tower asked if we could turn crosswind at airport road. It would be right at 30 degrees bank but I felt it was safe so I told them it was possible. At about 2-300 AGL just as I was starting the turn over the road and finishing the reply for the above radio call; I saw an air carrier over the approach lights on short final for [Runway] 35L at near co altitude. I took controls immediately and had to bank nearly 45 degrees to the left in order to avoid a collision with the air carrier. Tower did not seem like it was important to let us know where the traffic was or which runway it was coming in on.Lack of separation and information provided to both aircrews.Better procedures for separating jet and prop traffic especially when using crossing runways. Better communication between ATC and pilot of possible traffic conflicts. Pointing out traffic to aircrews that may be landing close time-wise on intersecting runways.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor on training flight reported NMAC with another aircraft landing on nearby runway at GFK airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine failure in flight. Pilot was able to land at [departure] airport.




Synopsis: C208 pilot reported engine failure in flight; resulting in safe return to departure airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While enroute to the hospital on medevac status; I received a radio handoff from Tower ZZZ1 to call ZZZ Tower after crossing the extended centerline of Runway at ZZZ. At the same time; I had received a traffic update from Company Dispatch on radio #2 concerning another helicopter leaving a close by Hospital heading south. I acknowledged the handoff from ZZZ1 Tower on radio #1; then acknowledged the Traffic Advisory from Company Dispatch on radio #2; and switched back to radio #1 to make initial contact with ZZZ. Initial call to ZZZ was actually made while still on ZZZ1 frequency; the discrepancy was immediately realized; and the frequency for ZZZ was switched into the primary channel of radio #1. Initial contact was then made with ZZZ Tower; at which time the Controller advised that contact needed to be made prior to entering the surface Class Bravo airspace and advised to copy the telephone number for ZZZ Tower for possible violation. Primary priority should have been given to making initial contact with ZZZ Tower; the decision to acknowledge the call from Company Dispatch lead to additional time being taken and also contributed to forgetting to switch the ZZZ frequency into the primary radio channel before making initial call.




Synopsis: Medevac helicopter operating from one hospital to another failed to make timely coordination with Tower prior to entering Class B airspace.
Date: 201409
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Flight reported STAB TRIM setting outside of the Green Band. The Captain and I referenced the Flight Manual. Load planning gave the flight a percent MAC of 32.5 but did not issue CG values. We were told they do not issue them for the B777. Using the chart in the AFM at a weight of 490.0; it would appear the aircraft is in balance The Dispatcher was told by the Fleet Manager that this chart was informational only and had been provided by Boeing. Had the Green Band failed mechanically; this aircraft might have attempted to depart tail heavy. This is an extremely dangerous posture. Please remove the chart as soon as possible before a serious accident occurs. At a percent Mac of 32.5 this aircraft was out of balance but you would not know it from the attached chart.




Synopsis: A B777 weight and balance did not include a CG value for the 32.5 percent MAC so the Captain and Dispatcher questioned the Load Planner because the takeoff STAB TRIM was outside the GREEN BAND. An informational chart on the aircraft erroneously indicated the aircraft in trim; when it was actually tail heavy.
Date: 201309
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received a 'Go-around; windshear ahead' audible warning with the hashed display on both Pilots' DU's. This occurred for about five seconds then the radar test pattern appeared on both Pilots' DU's. The Pilot Flying said basically; 'That's not correct. I'm continuing.' Before I could say; 'No; let's go-around;' the radar test pattern started to be displayed on both Pilots' DU's; so we continued the approach to landing. Once at the gate; I discussed with the other pilot that we should have gone around even though we deemed the warning as faulty. Regardless of what you think; any time the aircraft tells you to go-around; you should.




Synopsis: A B737NG EGPWS issued a 'GO AROUND; WINDSHEAR AHEAD' alert in day VMC at 1;000 FT so the crew continued the approach to a normal landing.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E A90
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I issued a 'Cleared KRANN3 arrival Runway 27 Transition' to Aircraft Y and the pilot read it back correctly. I exchanged traffic information with both aircraft. Aircraft Y began his descent. I caught the descent when Aircraft Y was leaving 10;800; and instructed the pilot to maintain 11;000. I instructed Aircraft X and Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation from each other. Both pilots read it back timely and correctly. I issued a 'Brasher' warning to Aircraft Y and asked what happened? His response was that he received a 'descend Via' clearance.In reference to all of the RNAV changes in recent months/years; I feel that all of this change is confusing to flight crews and controllers. I specifically told the crew that there was crossing traffic and issued traffic; and the crew still descended!My recommendation is to not use the word 'cleared' in a clearance associated with RNAV procedures. If we are going to use this phraseology; I recommend re-iterating to the pilot the altitude to maintain. 'Cleared KRANN3 Runway 27 Transition; maintain 11;000'. We shouldn't have to; but this is an added measure of safety until we find a better way of doing this.




Synopsis: Reporter states difficulty with pilot in understanding the difference between cleared and descend via phraseology which led to an operational error.