elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We leveled off at a cruise altitude of 38;000 FT with the autopilot and autothrottles engaged. As we leveled we encountered light wake turbulence. I was the pilot not flying and was putting away my charts when I heard the clacker and looked up and saw the speed of .827. The First Officer was already reducing thrust. We both noted the autothrottles had disengaged. Our best reasoning is that it disconnected when we hit the wake turbulence as we leveled at altitude. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance via ACARS to report the event and made a logbook entry. We continued the flight to the final destination. We were met by Maintenance and handed the aircraft over to a new crew.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported an overspeed at FL380 following a wake vortex encounter that could have disconnected the autothrottles.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: From [the] gate [we were] instructed to hold short of RA and contact ground. Ground control's instructions were to taxi to 4L via B; RB; short of PA. After we were established on B we saw PA straight ahead and remembered our instructions to hold short of PA. We continued towards it and after missing our turn at RB; ground advised us that we had gone the wrong way.I believe having a Captain flying as an FO is a safety problem waiting to happen. While I cannot adequately explain here how this affected our situation; I do believe that it played a role. The taxiway layout in Newark is confusing.




Synopsis: ERJ-170 Captain reported deviating from assigned taxi route; and commented that it was unsafe to have a Captain acting as a First Officer.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Aircraft component: Waste Water Disposal System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on the jet in Denver we were stopped by the inbound crew and informed that waste was spilling from the aft lavatory onto the floor in front of the jumpseat and into the galley. The purser said the water appeared to come from the toilet and sink and was soiled. Upon boarding there was a foul odor and we waited for the cockpit. The pilot walked to the back of the plane and said the Lav was locked; sealed and we were going. I pointed out that the seatbelt harness and safety equipment was soiled. The galley floor was soiled and the aisle by the passenger seat was soiled. The area in front of the jumpseat was soiled. Insufficient measures were taken to decontaminate the harness; galley and demo equipment; the wet floor in the galley and in front of the jumpseat and passenger area. During landing fluid spilled from the Lav toward the jumpseat and I had to keep my feet on the Lav wall to keep waste off of them. Regardless of my concerns there was a breakdown in crew resource mgt. There was no support or effort to address my concerns. Carpets in the passenger area; galley area; seatbelt harness; jumpseat area; demo equipment were all soiled. I notified inflight. I want to know what is the proper procedure to deal with contaminants and why didn't flight ops coordinate better to address the waste in an effort to clean and disinfect the aircraft? Why wasn't the procedure followed? I am highly concerned about the possibility of infectious waste given we are a global carrier and I was exposed unlike the crew at the front of the aircraft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant believes that a lavatory spill on an aircraft she was assigned to was not properly cleaned and disinfected prior to departure.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While landing on 31L I was distracted by multiple very bright white lights that appeared to be on the west end of 31L facing directly down the runway. They gave the illusion of an aircraft on the runway with landing lights on. This was very distracting during the landing flare especially; and then rollout. I have not noticed these lights before. I queried Ground Control about it. Controller used his binoculars and relayed to me it looked like some lights at a gas station across the lake at the west end of the runway. I don't know if this is a recent lighting upgrade at this location; but I definitely feel an evaluation should be done as they appear during the landing flare and seem to be level with the runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported being distracted during an approach to DAL by bright lights; which appeared to emanate from a source outside the airport boundary.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UHMM.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A UHMM
ATC / advisory: Center UHMM
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The operating flight crew notified me of a problem while I was resting in the bunk. I went to the Flight deck and they informed me that the NAV Performance system indicating up to a 15 mile ANP. They informed me that they ran through the appropriate checklist. I stayed on the flight deck while the ANP return to a normal value. This only lasted for about 20 minutes. We continued to Anchorage and landed without incident.I suggest we track the locations and times of these events in order to determine whether they are internal aircraft system related or external signal interference related.


Second narrative: GPS R & ADS-B R failed.Between Navigation points UNEDA to NOKID; GPS L remained on and accurate; but was not updating FMC positions. RNP required 4.0. ANP rose slowly to approximately 2.6. After 3 minutes; the ANP jumped to approximately 15.6 then continued to rise slowly. Crew completed GPS R Fail and ADS-B Fail checklists. ANP did not recover from checklist completion. Crew reported loss of RNP capability to Magadan Control.Crew verified position vs navigation reference pages and from radar contact (Magadan) at point BE. The aircraft did not receive an active bearing pointer from BE. The autopilot maintained previous planned track; no navigation deviations noted.Near NOKID GPS R and ADS- B R status messages cleared and ANP rapidly Normalized to 0.08. No further issues were noted.Suspect Active GPS jamming in the area. Suspect system logic problem for L GPS not supplying position information to the FMC's/ANP after GPS R failed.Under radar control flight segments or within range of ground based navigation facilities; verifying an accurate location is a common and easy task.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported possible GPS jamming resulted in loss of GPS and ADS-B.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Software and Automation; Procedure; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Aircraft X migrated from [program] to [program 1] records tracking.Prior to migration; [Logbook Deferral Sheet] 70XXXXXX was issued for replacement of the RH MLG FWD Trunion pin at next gear replacement and [Logbook Deferral Sheet] 70XXXXXY was issued for inspection of the pin each 24 month interval as required per [Repair Document] 32-XX-XX-X. At system migration [Logbook Deferral Sheet] 70XXXXXX was converted to [Logbook Deferral Sheet] 02XXXXX and [Logbook Deferral Sheet] 70XXXXXY was deleted. Therefore; the previous accomplishment history doesn't appear to be available since the [Logbook Deferral Sheet] is no longer accessible in [program]. [Maintenance Operations Manual] 03.XX.X states in part; 'Review all [documentation] for correctness of deferral reference; repetitive and/or terminating action.' During system migration the repetitive action requirements are not being transferred to the surviving [Logbook Deferral Sheet].I just happened to catch this one (and will update with a [Repair Document] revised inspection interval) but it is a systemic issue and virtually every migrated item that previously had a separate [Logbook Deferral Sheet] for an interim inspection will have a high potential of missing a required inspection because the previous tracking items are being deleted without the data being transferred and Maintenance Control not have access to the precious item history. As a side note; when Maintenance Control does a Spec Table update we are required to enter ZZZ (line) for the function to work. This results in the entry appearing as if it was made by a ZZZ line station person instead of coming from Maintenance Control. This is inaccurate.




Synopsis: Maintenance Controller reported problems with migration of maintenance tracking data during migration to a new program; resulting in missing information.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Merlin III
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing; nose wheel landing gear malfunctioned and veered hard left uncontrollably. Corrective action was hard right breaking action and hard reverse.  Control was gained but only after one prop blade struck sign on edge of runway. As exiting runway; steering was engaged only to realize the steering was inoperable and was unable to completely exit the runway. A tug was requested to assist; then taxi to repair station on field in which repairs could be made. Conditions were light rain; wind and wet pavement. After investigations; a shuttle valve in nose wheel steering was inoperable causing the action. Nose wheel steering was operable at departure airport.




Synopsis: Pilot flying Merlin IIIB aircraft reported loss of Nose Wheel Steering control during landing rollout. Post flight inspection revealed shuttle valve in Nose Wheel Steering was inoperable.
Date: 201402
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flew two flights with; what we perceived as a tire with a slightly low pressure; but after last landing the tire only had 30 LBS of pressure in the tire. Both pilots thought the tire was just a little low on pressure and we opted to not have Maintenance look at the tire; so we could get out without further delay. When we came back to base with the aircraft we contacted Maintenance who told us that the tire was not flyable. We didn't realize it; but we believe that the tire had a slow leak in it; but the Mechanic stated that this was not possible (news to me but he probably knows more about tires than I do.)The problem arose due to the pilot doing the inspection didn't see it as too low. After Ground Personnel asked us about it I went and looked at tire and it appeared in good shape to me. Contributing factors were schedule trying to get all flights done under Part 117 rest rule requirements.  So in order to not lose time we didn't have Maintenance look at it. Corrective action is simple; when something looks not 100% call Maintenance. We checked the tire on both flights before we took off; but we didn't see any unusual wear of see a real low tire. Even though the ground crew was again pointing at the tire. Next time when a ground crew points out the tire I will definitely call Maintenance with a pressure gauge; as they see more of the tires than I do when flying. After we taxied in after the second landing it became obvious there was not enough air in the tire to fly. On postflight we found the pressure in the tire was at 30 PSI; which is way below the 166 PSI for normal pressure. The crew was not fatigued; just not really attentive on the tire going slowly flat like that. After the fact I feel like I didn't take the safest course of action and that is why I am submitting this report; in order to warn others not to take any risks that are not needed to operate an airplane!




Synopsis: CL-600 Captain reports flying two legs with a main gear tire perceived as slightly low on pressure; which was also pointed out by ground crewmen. The pressure is checked after the last leg and is found to be 30 PSI instead of the 166 PSI required.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CGZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF CGZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Traffic practicing instrument approaches to runway 5 at CGZ is very heavily congested. Due to this reason; the local operators have established that runway 5 should be used up to a 10 knot tailwind to accommodate the approach training. As such; winds were 210 at 7 knots; we taxied to runway 5 for our departure making radio calls on CTAF regarding our taxi; then following our run-up and then prior to taxiing onto the runway for departure. The only radio calls other than ours on the frequency were made by aircraft practicing the approaches. We checked final and looked to the other end of the runway as we taxied on and saw no other aircraft. After aligning with the runway it was difficult to see the far end of the runway clearly due to high temps on the runway creating wavy distortions at the far end from rising heat and as we began to apply throttle for takeoff suddenly we began to notice the shape of an aircraft rolling opposite direction on the runway. We reduced throttle to idle and exited at the first high speed and the other aircraft exited well down the runway. That aircraft made no radio calls to CTAF and multiple attempts to contact him were fruitless. It appears he was making a high speed taxi on the runway or using it to relocate to another area on the airport as he was never seen on final. Further vigilance will have to be made in such a high traffic area but it is important to continue to spread the word regarding local procedures at this airport and it really seems that radios should begin to be required at all airports for the sake of safety with how busy the airspace system is these days.




Synopsis: During the takeoff roll a general aviation pilot encountered another aircraft taxiing opposite direction on the same runway. The pilot rejected the takeoff; exited the runway; and attempted to contact the other aircraft to no avail.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC directed me to turn left downwind for [the] runway. I added one notch of flaps when abeam on downwind as usual. I start slowing down and dropping the nose as usual. The second flap added once on left base for [the runway]. Traffic was ahead and landed. I am cleared for the touch and go. Turn final and last flap. Slow the plane down to normal landing speed. Establish the best glide slope. Plane touches ground a bit to the left of centerline but still not far enough to warrant a go-around. Begin flare. Plane slows down. Nose touches ground. Upon touching ground; apply a little right rudder to get to centerline; but plane seems to turn violently (likely due to braking action). Then; it starts to skid on the runway. Plane swerving towards to direction of being perpendicular to the actual runway. I retract flaps to try to gain better control of the plane but by the time I try to apply left rudder to straighten out the plane; plane runs off runway and into grass. I apply left rudder and slam on brakes to try to get the plane to stop. Plane comes to a full stop to the right of [the] runway. ATC calls to ask if I'm okay. I say that I am okay; plane seems to be okay and undamaged; and will commence engine shutdown. ATC responds with 'Roger' and that they will send a firetruck to my site. I shut the plane down; call my instructor to let him know what happened; and exit the plane.




Synopsis: PA-28 student pilot reported a loss of control on landing that resulted in a runway excursion.