elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Captain had not flown in 5 months; and I am still relatively new to the airplane while only sporadically flying until this month. The bulletin for this issue was issued during a time that there were many outside factors affecting everyone's lives and then most of us did not fly very much. I feel that a bulletin as important as this should also be listed on the Approach Checklist to remind the crews. On the arrival to ZZZ; we were cleared direct to the airport from over 100 nautical miles away. ZZZ approach then kept us higher than normal. The Captain as the pilot flying attempted to descend and configure with speed brakes. We were given a tight base turn and cleared for the visual to XXR. Once it was obvious that we would not be stable by 1;000 feet AGL; the Captain called for a go-around. As I was notifying ATC; he proceeded to push the thrust levers to TOGA and then return them to MCT. The airplane immediately began an aggressive pitch up from about 2 degrees to over 25 degrees in less than 3 seconds. It was at that point that I remembered the bulletin for this aircraft in regards to the CG being less than 30.0%. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and lowered the nose. We circled back for XXR and landed without event.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported an important CG related bulletin for this aircraft was issued during a period of time when many crew members were not flying; and contributed to an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201911
Location: ZHN.ARTCC, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot monitoring when we originally departed Hawaii on time for the flight back to the mainland.  After leveling at cruise and checking in with SFO radio (and making our first position report) I asked the captain if we could set up a bathroom break.  During that process the Captain's mask became detached from the oxygen system and he was forced to turn off the crew oxygen system supply due to uncontrolled flow.  In accordance with ETOPS requirements we initiated a turn around back to Hawaii. During that process; we had very difficult communication with SFO (1x1) and very little communication with Honolulu on VHF.  We were unable to clearly ascertain our altitude clearance; so after discussing it we elected to vertically offset.  When we confirmed the clearance; we returned to our original altitude and returned to Hawaii uneventfully.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported oxygen system failure associated with the Captain's mask during cruise. Flight crew elected to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Taxiing Light
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The event occurred around very in the evening while departing Runway 19. We had been cleared for takeoff; I was the flying pilot and started the normal takeoff profile. At around 80-85 KIAS the Captain and I both felt a yawing motion while on the runway; accompanied with an engine noise that was a different pitch than we normally hear. A spilt-second later I noticed the left engine Interstage Turbine Temperature (ITT) gauge was blinking red; around 928C. I called for an abort; we performed the rejected takeoff profile; and I advised Tower that we were aborting. The Captain had the left engine at idle and the engine still showed a high ITT; and the right engine was used in reverse to help us stop and we exited on to Taxiway November. We decided to shut down the left engine as we exited the runway because of the high ITT. We had no indication of fire and we did not know if there was damage so we told ground we were going back to the gate. Upon arrival at the gate; we inspected the left engine to find damage to the bottom part of the engine cowl and damaged N1 fan blades. I looked for further damage and found the left wing lens cover on the taxi light was missing; we noted that the left taxi light had just been replaced and signed off my maintenance; so the captain and I both thought it had come loose on the takeoff roll and caused the incident. We wrote up the aircraft for damage and swapped into another airplane and continued to our destination with no further events.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 crew rejected the takeoff after the left engine compressor section was damaged during takeoff when a taxi light lens was ingested. Maintenance had just replaced the light and installed the lens prior to the flight.
Date: 201402
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During the flight crew's DG [Dangerous Goods] inspection we found boxes that appeared damaged. We asked the ramp agent how they determine if a package is damaged and he stated they were told that; if there was any questions; to load it on the aircraft and see if the crew asks for it to be removed. The boxes were not removed; but pictures were sent to Flight Safety to determine their opinion on the shipments. The DG paperwork also had conflicting position information between the aircraft summary and the manifests that was rectified prior to departure.I believe this event happened due to the lack of standardized training and clear expectations with regard to DG procedures.The company should clearly train pilots and DG personnel as to what constitutes a damaged package. [The goal of such training] should be changing DG specialists attitudes from 'let's see if the flight crew objects' to 'let's be part of the safety process and ensure that nothing unsafe gets loaded on the aircraft'. With respect to the paperwork issue [we must ensure] that DG agents understand that everything with respect to DG is serious and must be done correctly.




Synopsis: An MD-11 Captain addressed concerns about a casual attitude on the part of Dangerous Goods handlers with respect to damaged packaging who were instructed to board possibly compromised packaging and remove it only if the flight crew refused it.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The event requires more research. Aircraft X was handed off at the last minute to me. The data block tagged up correctly and I took the radar handoff and issued heading a 360 heading to stay clear of my arrivals. Aircraft X checked in on heading 360 climbing to 20;000 feet as instructed. TRACON called to handoff on Aircraft Y and I informed them I see him; but had no data block on the aircraft. We often have automation problems. I instructed TRACON to put the aircraft on my frequency while I attempted to identify and climb the aircraft. I had both aircraft verify their codes and ident as I tried to understand why I couldn't pick up Aircraft Y. I climbed Aircraft X to 26;000 feet and handed him off to with a call explaining the situation. After several minutes we determined that the aircraft were tagged incorrectly and the flight plans were incorrect. Aircraft X departed another airport and was in ZMA airspace.




Synopsis: ZJX Center Controller reported the data tags for two aircraft with similar callsigns acquired on the wrong target and the flight plans were not accurate.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground Control when I noticed Local Control tell an aircraft to LUAW on Runway 35R with Aircraft X on final.  Aircraft X was about adjacent to the tree line and appeared to be approximately 100 feet AGL.  I told Local Control; 'Dude you've got a guy on short final!' and he replied; 'He's 100 feet from the threshold!'  This comment and the fact that I've told him before when I was CIC not to LUAW until preceding aircraft have landed indicated to me that the controller is knowingly doing this. I've seen this controller use anticipated separation in conjunction with LUAW on Runway 17R in the past and have told him.A notice in the read and initial binder regarding the use of LUAW should be placed in the CEDAR enforcing that at our facility without safety logic we cannot instruct aircraft to LUAW until preceding aircraft that has been cleared to land has passed the intersection of departing aircraft.




Synopsis: AUS Ground Controller observes the Local Controller telling an aircraft to LUAW; while another aircraft is on short final to the same runway.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: PHL on 9/35 configuration; new mitigated headings went into effect. Workload is very high on this configuration. It is the busiest position in the Tower under these circumstances. I was working Local East with traffic departing 9L and landing intersecting Runway 35. Traffic on short final to Runway 35 and an A321 in position on 9L; I crossed two aircraft at Taxiway November; an E170 first then an A321 and one aircraft at Taxiway 'E'. Landing traffic cleared the departure runway and I looked to see if my crossings were complete. I saw the first aircraft clearing the runway at November and though it was my second. I cleared the A321 for take off and immediately realized my error as the E170 was still moving. I immediately canceled the take off clearance. The aircraft had not appeared to move; but when the pilot was questioned; he said he moved about ten feet. The ASDE-X did not alarm; nor did the 'bars' go up. Don't have a complex operation during a procedure change. Taking the Runway 35 arrivals out of the equation would have dramatically reduced the workload. New mitigated headings were taking attention away from other tasks. Having clearance or Ground Control write the heading on the departure strip would have been a big help.




Synopsis: PHL Controller cleared a second aircraft for take off failing to note crossing traffic down field; the reporter issuing alternate instructions to secure separation.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMGL.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MMGL; Ramp MMGL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Night landing in MMGL; my first trip into MMGL; end of a long 4 leg day; including an aircraft swap on the second leg after we preflighted it; causing us to be delayed all day.  After landing Runway 28; we were given  clearance to taxi to the gate via A and D; cross Runway 02; contact Ramp entering D.  Captain was taxiing; I  was heads down completing the After Landing checklist.  He asked if this was D; I looked up and  couldn't quite read the sign; which was obstructed by tall grass and dark.  At the last minute; I made out  a 'D' and said yes; turned out I was mistaken; it indicated D was the next taxiway.  After he made the  left turn; we saw F painted on the pavement.  He stopped the aircraft and I advised Ramp we had  entered at F instead of D.  Even though our path to the right was clear; Ramp did not allow us to turn  right toward our gate from F; but instructed us to taxi to the left out G; hold short of A and contact  Ground.  There were no light aircraft in the ramp area blocking our path; and after clearance from  Ground we proceeded back down A to D without incident. Suggest encouraging MMGL to trim grass around taxiway signage; and ensure signage is clearly lit and  visible at night.  Suggest encouraging crews who are unfamiliar or lack recent experience to a field to  suspend/delay checklists well prior to upcoming turns; and ensure both pilots are heads-up to provide a  positive cross-check of taxi route.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reports entering the ramp at MMGL on the wrong taxiway due to tall grass obscuring a sign and night time conditions.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were climbing to our cruise altitude of FL350. We were in contact with Chicago Center. Passing through FL330; Chicago told us to stop the climb and level off at FL340 for traffic. We were then given a heading of 140 degrees. I would estimate that we were given direct EWC maybe no more than 60 seconds following the vector; and we proceeded on course. Another minute or so after this; we were given a heading of 180 degrees; approximately 90 degrees off course; and then told to make a 'tight turn.' I immediately complied and banked 30 degrees. On my navigation display I saw an intruder target at our altitude; in a climb; that very quickly became a yellow TA alert with its audible 'traffic; traffic' alert. In retrospect; I could not say how distant the aircraft was; but would guess 5-10 miles away. I could see the lights of the other aircraft through the windshield. I prepared for an RA resolution; but the RA never materialized; and the TCAS symbol changed to a non-threat. The aircraft had now climbed 1000 feet above our altitude; and we were once again cleared direct to EWC. Shortly after this; we were cleared to FL350.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported receiving a TA at FL340 while on an ATC vector in the vicinity of EWC.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to (ZZZ) an airport in southeast Alsaka. The flight checked in with CTAF and was advised by someone on the CTAF radio that there was a disabled aircraft on the runway and instructed to make a 360 then report 3 mile final. The initial conversation between the OM; Airport Manager; and pilot of Aircraft X indicated this was not a problem.  ZZZ is an uncontrolled airport with no on field FSS or Tower. The broadcast to Aircraft X did not cause an incident for the flight. Quality Control review indicates there was a 'Fly In' event. This event recorded radio transmissions on ZZZ CTAF throughout the activity. Review of these recordings indicates someone authorized an inappropriate use of the CTAF radio to provide instructions to aircraft landing and departing the airport. There also appears to be inappropriate notice for parachute jumping activity that occurred. Aviation Security has been contacted by ZAN. This is the event description in MOR # [Specified] was not the Controller working the event; I am the LSC rep. Speaking with the Asst. ATM at ZAN he told me that the incident was turned over to security who counseled with Legal. Legal said it was fine; there was no problem. Needless to say; it rather took the Controller and the pilots going in to ZZZ by surprise that there was a 'controller' there. There were other problems too. Per the Asst. ATM; the ZZZ air show hired an out of state retired Controller with air show experience to control the air show. The Airport Manager called Flight Service 5 minutes before operations commenced to issue a NOTAM. Appears a lot of procedures may not have been followed; i.e. issuing NOTAMs; briefings; possibly a TFR; or Air show approval.




Synopsis: Reporter describes scenario of a CTAF that was used to give control instructions to aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 30 miles north of ABQ area; lost GPS signal due to jamming on our way to APA. GPS signal was recovered but perhaps not complete accuracy. Indeed; when arriving and asked to proceed direct to the airport (APA) the autopilot track was off; aiming about 3 miles north of the airport. Controller believed we were tracking direct to a fixed on final approach course of GPS RWY 17. I told him we were direct to the airport. Controller opted to give us vectors for the visual approach.




Synopsis: Small transport Captain reported GPS Navigation accuracy degraded after experiencing Jamming earlier during flight.