elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKL.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MKL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was taxiing southwest on Taxiway A when Jackson Ground told me to hold short of Runway 20 at Taxiway B. I could see a Taxiway B sign ahead; so I proceeded toward it. A moment later; Jackson Ground said I had missed my turn.I took another look at the airport diagram and realized that Taxiway B intersects Taxiway A in two places. The B sign I had seen was at the second intersection. Apparently; Ground intended for me to stop at the first intersection. There was no B sign northeast of the first intersection.I think the best way to prevent a recurrence would be to rename half of Taxiway B. That way there would only be one intersection of taxiways A and B. Also; there should be a taxiway sign at the northeastern-most intersection of A and B visible to aircraft approaching from the northeast on A. In the meantime; whenever Ground Controllers refer to an intersection of taxiways A and B; they should inform pilots that there are two such intersections and specify which one they are talking about.




Synopsis: While taxiing southeast on Taxiway 'A;' a C210 pilot failed to hold short at Taxiway 'B' at KMKL as cleared by Ground Control. A contributing factor was the fact that 'B' intersects 'A' a two points and only the point further from the point the clearance was received is marked.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 1 hour into the flight; I noticed a message on my side Captain (CA) that there was an airspeed disagreement. After checking the Caution panel; I also found that there was a second problem indicated by an ENG caution light (EEC went to alt mode). My airspeed indicator showed about 10-15 kts slower than the First Officer (FO) side. The FO was the flying pilot at this time. I went through the EP for IAS disagree; then airspeed unreliable. It appeared that the FO side was working properly but the CA side was reading low. After about ten minutes. The problem went away. We elected to continue with the use of the auto-throttle and auto-pilot on the right side. The same problem came back about an hour later; then went away again. With systems set up for the FO flying; we had no problems during the climb or cruise (to include a couple cruise climbs and descents.)During the first descent in the cruise phase; both airspeed indicators started malfunctioning with wide swings in airspeed indications of up to 40 kts difference; the nose pitched down; and actual airspeed started increasing (VNAV also kicked off). The airspeed disagree message now showed on both CA and FO sides. We turned off auto-pilot and auto-throttle; and used the standby airspeed indication because it was the only one that seemed to be working properly. We switched controls to the CA side since the standby airspeed indicator is on that side of the panel. The plane flew fine; but there was a very strong tendency for me to pull the malfunctioning airspeed indicator back into my scan; coupled with the small size of the standby indicator; which made it a challenge to keep the desired airspeed. A short while later; we had to react to a TCAS RA. Weather was VMC in ZZZ; but they were calling possible windshear and were reporting gusty crosswinds. Traffic was heavy coming into ZZZ; so we were getting large vectors and speed changes to put us in line for landing.


Second narrative: Received intermittent IAS Disagree during cruise. Large fluctuations during descent. Completed QRH. Captain assumed Pilot Flying (PF) duties. Fortunately VMC conditions. Strong surface winds with LLWS advisories in effect. Landing was uneventful.


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported unreliable airspeed indicators on both the Captain and First Officers side.
Date: 201512
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight was flight planned on an easterly routing to PEK. This routing was more common practice from the other east coast hubs and rarely seen here. Initially not caught in flight ops due to concerns and briefings over lithium batteries; we initially missed the routing threats associated with this flight. It wasn't discovered until we leveled off and a thorough route analysis was performed. Due to the nature of the boarders for a non-supplemental flight over Greenland was the threat first noticed. After an hour of plotting and building a no fly zone and sectors associated with decompression routes over Greenland did we realize that the flight would pass within approximately 20 NM of the no fly zone. The exact distance is questionable since the coordinates given in the International Manual are for fly to points and not borders for the different zones. It was our estimation we would be transiting no less than five separate zones in approximately 15-20 min time frame. Although in the end a non-event for us on this flight a small deviation could've led to a different operational impact.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer discovers enroute that his flight to ZBAA from an east coast hub; passes very close to several loss of cabin pressurization no fly zones.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final below 500 ft. the FO (First Officer) was flying and had an un-commanded stabilizer trim down. He stopped it with using the electric trim in the opposite direction correcting the out of trim condition and landed uneventfully. After landing we debriefed what happened and decided to write the malfunction up in the aircraft log. I was unaware that the FO was experiencing a problem with the trim until after landing.




Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported stabilizer trim anomalies on final.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for a visual approach Runway XXL in ZZZ instructed to maintain 3000 ft. [until] ZZZZZ and 170 kts to follow traffic. Weather was clear and we were admiring the view and doing some sightseeing when we realized that the approach was not armed which kept us high on the approach. The PF (Pilot Flying) immediately disconnected the autopilot and called for the extension of landing gear and soon after lowered flaps on speed to get back on the approach. Tower approved S turns and we did two turns before getting on final course. PF had positive control the whole time as we landed without any incident and proceeded to our gate. At the gate we had a long discussion on our mistakes and the importance of the Stabilized Approach Criteria as it is emphasized in [Operations Manual] and [Flight Manual]. We agreed that a go-around would [have] been warranted.Be extra aware of complacency especially during nice weather. Always keep Stabilized Approach Criteria in mind; [be] ready to Go Around if it's not [met].




Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported conducting an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had bleed 2 leak in flight.  Followed EPC [Emergency Procedures Checklist] and AOM-1 procedures.  Performed precautionary shutdown of #2 engine; declared emergency; and diverted to [the nearest suitable] airport.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain experiences a Number 2 bleed leak in flight and complies with EPC procedures. The engine is shut down and the flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Descending into IAD at approximately 4;500 ft. and 250 knots; inside MCQUE intersection on the MAPEL 2 arrival for Runway 19L; the Captain's windshield suddenly shattered. The Captain was looking down at the time; however both the [Relief Pilot] and myself; the flying First Officer; saw something strike the windshield. The Captain's windshield was completely shattered (but the inner pane was still intact) so I took over and landed the aircraft at his direction. There were no injuries. At first we assumed that this was a bird strike; however after landing we examined the window both inside and outside with maintenance and we saw no evidence of any bird remains or blood. After further reflection; we felt that this very possibly could have been a drone strike; as there was a clear area on the windshield showing where something hit it; with the cracks radiating from it; but with no evidence of biological material.




Synopsis: First Officer reported Captain's windshield was shattered during final approach by a possible collision with a drone.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were delayed waiting for maintenance to taxi the aircraft to the gate. They had been working on the aircraft the last 2 days for an Anti-Skid and Nose Wheel Steering loss by a previous crew.They had replaced a Servo Control and signed the aircraft off. It was now delivered to our gate. We departed with no problems; faults or issues until we were at 2000 feet and lowered the landing gear for landing on runway XY in ZZZ. Several seconds later; we received a Nose Wheel (NW) Steering fault. The First Officer (FO) and I cycled the NW Steering Switch to try a reset of the system. I pulled out the QRH and quickly read through the procedure. We determined that we would have no NW Steering on landing and concurred to continue the approach and landing. The FO landed the aircraft and after we slowed to a slower taxi speed; I took the aircraft from the FO and exited on a high speed taxiway. I stopped the aircraft and we requested a tug to tow us to the gate.After we stopped; we also received a Brake System 1 Fault. The FO contacted maintenance and we tried a reset of the system. It did not fix the faults; and we then had to wait for the tug to tow us to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported accepting an aircraft that had just come out of maintenance for an Anti Skid and Nose Wheel Steering fault. The fault returned when the gear was extended for landing and a reset was unsuccessful. After clearing the runway the aircraft was towed to the gate.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on approach to ASE ATC said to line up with runway earlier than usual and cleared for visual. The conditions were unlimited visibility and clear skies. Since I cut the corner I began a slow descent. Because the earlier turn; we received a TWAS warning. We had all terrain in sight and were clear of all terrain. I was slow to disengage the autopilot and respond to the warning; thus receiving another warning. Once clear of all obstacles; we continued to the airport; without incident.I believe if we hadn't accepted the straight in clearance and should have kept with our original plan and descended via the published LOC-DME altitudes; we would not have been in this situation. We agreed that going around would be far more dangerous with the terrain around us. Upon landing we talked about it and decided we should have gone around and attempted another approach.




Synopsis: First Officer reported not disconnecting autopilot soon enough in the approach; resulting in a TWAS warning.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; left engine EGT began flashing. Also; left engine fuel flow (which was placarded for reading 0) began flashing as well.  Rejected takeoff at approximately 100 knots. No other abnormal indications were observed.


Second narrative: [Second narrative contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: TRACON SDF; Tower SDF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The last two nights; the inbound SDF has landed Runways 17 with a tailwind. Tonight the winds were a 15 knot tailwind down to a couple of hundred feet AGL with a rapid shear to 7-8 knot tailwind. After landing; I queried Tower why we were landing south with a tailwind and was told there was some activity at Ft. Knox. (This caused the F/O to wonder if the winds were 11 knots would we cancel the sort and everyone go home?).While I understand there may be times where landing operations must be conducted with a tailwind; ATC should recognize this is an abnormal situation. We were vectored for Runway 17L at 4;000 FT AGL on a heading that would have caused us to intercept final 1-2 miles inside of the FAF. All the while asking if we had traffic in sight to follow below us. We declined and were given another turn to the east and descent to 3;000 FT a few miles west of the localizer.  My point is that landing operations with a tailwind should not result in super tight vectors; hoping crews will be able to accept traffic in-sight and figure out separation on their own. Tailwind operations often result in aircraft spending more time on the runway; not less.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of landing with a tailwind and is not happy with the circumstances. Aircraft is turned in inside the outer marker and pilot is questioned if they have traffic they are following in sight.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Pre-Departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Gate checking bags on quick turn flight. Passenger's bag was tagged. Ramp personnel noticed lithium battery sticker on side of bag upon loading into aircraft pit. Ramp discovered lithium batteries inside bag. Jetbridge already pulled and requested to be put back up to advise passenger. Passenger came to front of aircraft and took lithium batteries out of bag. When questioned why she did not remove them when we had made the required announcements regarding lithium batteries; she commented we said they were spare lithium batteries not the original batteries.




Synopsis: Airline Ramp Agent reported checked bag label contained lithium ion batteries. Batteries removed prior to departure.