elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
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: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in a -700 model 737. In the descent to FL280; when ATC cleared us to cross ZZZZZ Intersection (on STAR) at FL240. We entered the new restriction in the FMC; noticed that the aircraft VNAV PATH symbol was erratic from high to low back to high etc. Eventually it settled down; we leveled at FL280 as programmed in the Altitude window of the FMC. We had 240 in the Altitude window and both LNAV and VNAV switched engaged and confirmed in the window. Aircraft started the descent as planned from FL280 to FL240. However; we crossed ZZZZZ Intersection at FL250 instead of FL240. Still showing on VNAV PATH and right on path. That was very puzzling. Later in the flight; the aircraft while on autopilot and level at 4000 feet; decided to pitch up after an increased speed was set into the Speed window; power came up and so was the nose. I took over manually and flew the approach by hand. On the ground in Airport ZZZ1 we had maintenance come out; do bite checks etc.; could not find anything wrong. I decided to shut down the aircraft completely and restart it and do some more bite checks. Nothing found both times. I was told Maintenance in Airport ZZZ just did an update (which one I don't know) to aircraft while it was in ZZZ. I have seen multiple times now in -700 series aircraft doing the same thing; where it shows on path but the path calculated by the aircraft will not make the next altitude restriction. During the XXX XXX and now Ground School I hear people getting close to overspeeds in the descents; that make me believe there is something big going on with the descent calculations and why we may be missing altitudes. The speed indexes do increase our speeds; but that of projected 284 in the descent is not even close to be considered in the neighborhood for overspeeds. My idea is that somewhere in the software is a glitch when it comes to the descent calculations; and I have a feeling it started around the time when we were getting the descent winds from outside source and entered them into the box.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported the FMS seems to have difficulty making crossing restrictions.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Having accepted the WESLA Four SID departing Runway 28R at SFO; I proceeded as directed in the SID description: Climbing heading 284 to 520 feet; then direct WESLA climbing through 2;000 feet at or below 230 kts; then turn left direct PORTE. About 2 miles prior to WESLA; passing 2;000 feet; I turned left direct PORTE as directed in the guidance. TRACON advised that I should have continued to WESLA before the turn. However; very commonly ATC clears one to proceed direct to another fix reaching a specified altitude. This is usual and customary. No one is 'at or above 2;000 feet' while proceeding direct to WESLA out of 520 feet. So; the turn direct PORTE was entirely in keeping with the guidance as stated.The DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIPTION is as follows; 'TAKEOFF RUNWAYS 28L/R: Climb heading 284 to 520 then direct WESLA at or above 2;000 feet at or below 230 kts; then left turn direct PORTE.' That's what I did. Turning just before WESLA reaching 2;000 feet is in keeping with standard phraseology routinely used by FAA. Should the intent be otherwise two words should be added to the route description. Those two words are: 'PASSING WESLA' AT OR ABOVE 2;000 feet.'




Synopsis: Medium Transport aircraft Captain reported failure to meet a crossing restriction resulted in a clearance deviation during departure from SFO.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RPLC.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground RPLC
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On taxi out at RPLC; Tower gave use taxi instructions (due to construction Delta and Fox 7 closed) taxi Delta to Fox-5 to Fox 5 Alfa to Fox 7 holding point 02R. I read it back and no change from Tower. Captain and I looked at the map and we decided to ask for clarification. Tower gave same instructions!! So I read back same instruction. Tower actually said (Delta Fox 5; Alfa to Fox 7 holding point 02R). After passing Alfa he told us we missed Alfa. He told us just go down Runway 02L to Fox 7 to the holding point 02R. Tower said that Fox 5A is not a taxiway!! But it is on our Jeppesen charts. Another air carrier was also coming out and said it was on his chart also.




Synopsis: A Wide Body Cargo crew was cleared to the RLPC/CRK Runway 02R holding point via Delta; Fox 5; Alpha; Fox 7 to the 02R hold point but they heard Delta; Fox 5A; Fox 7 to the holding point. The airport diagram depicted Fox 5 Alpha but Tower stated that Fox 5A was not a taxiway and cleared the crew down Runway 02L to Fox 7.
Date: 201602
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushing [another aircraft]; a fellow employee that was working the gate with me told me everything was setup for the tow over to [another] gate. I hooked up the tow bar not verifying that there was a bypass pin in because I was told everything was set up; but I should have verified that it was. Another employee started [to] tow the plane and the main gear snapped the tow bar on the main gear.




Synopsis: A ramp employee reported a broken tow bar event that took place when the bypass pin installation was not verified prior to pushback.
Date: 201201
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Busbar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately one hour into flight; got multiple EICAS messages; five pages of failures in the CMC of mostly right side navigation and datalink systems. It appeared we had lost an entire bus as all generators and bus ties showed normal; also lost ACARS. Checked Circuit Breaker (CB) panel and found AC 2; DIST P-7 popped. [We] called Dispatch and Maintenance for conference. Maintenance checked wiring schematics and said 3-phase breakers sometimes pop. Advised I could use Captain's emergency authority to try one reset. We reset the CB and all systems returned to normal operations. All EICAS messages cleared except No Land 3. [We] used CMC to clear all status messages at Maintenance direction. Maintenance suggested we turn off and re-engage autopilot to reset No Land 3 message and it worked as stated. [We] sent MRM code per Maintenance request. The help we received from Maintenance was superb! The following systems were lost: ATC RIGHT; STAB AUTO TRIM; RUDDER RATIO; DME; RIGHT ADF; RIGHT VOR; RIGHT ACARS; MU; RADIO ALT; RIGHT STAB; XFR SIG; ILS RIGHT; FLAP SYS MONITOR; FLAP CONT RIGHT; NO LAND 3; TRANSPONDER RIGHT; RUDDER RATIO; SNGL SATCOM; DATA DATALINK SYS. The use of Captain's Emergency Authority was warranted to prevent a diversion. Had the system not reset; we would probably have ended up diverting rather than risk an ocean crossing and possible subsequent failures.




Synopsis: A B747-400 Captain reported loss of an AC Bus that produced a large number of failure messages. Using his Captain's emergency authority; he re-set a circuit breaker and restored the affected systems.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airframe Composite Structure
Component problem: Improperly Operated
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 Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: As we pulled into the gate area; we both looked closely at the Safety Zone; our aircraft was a scimitar equipped -800 and it appeared clear. The Ramp Agent had Wing Walkers and wands. We followed the Ramp Agent's guidance closely and parked directly and right on the spot.After setting the parking brake and shutting down; the First Officer noticed the Wing Walker trying to communicate something. After the completion of our Parking Checklist; I went down to the ramp to investigate. Apparently the nose cone of our aircraft had made contact with the top of a pushback tug. Maintenance and Dispatch were notified.The Marshalling Ramp Agent needs to walk to the back-end of Safety Zone to double check that no part of the pushback tug hangs over the line; before focusing attention upon guiding the aircraft in on the line. All Company pushback tugs need to have a flag installed on the front so we know their exact location at eye level.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that the nose cone of the aircraft made contact with a tug.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: Tower HPN
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed HPN Runway 16 on the WESTCHESTER 4 SID. As we reached 800 FT and initiated the turn to 320 we got a TA. ATC amended our instructions and were given runway heading maintain 2;000 FT. We both visually acquired the traffic and it continued to turn and climb into our flight path prompting an RA of 'monitor vertical speed.'  The First Officer informed the Tower of the RA as traffic passed beneath us with the TCAS displaying 200 FT on the target. We were then issued a climb to 3;000 FT and the turn to 320. We were given a number to call back in HPN. Upon arrival I notified the Assistant Chief Pilot (ACP) of our incident and then called HPN Tower. The Controller I spoke with explained that the traffic was a VFR departure off of Runway 11 before we departed 16. He further explained that the traffic was supposed depart straight out or make a left turn out from that runway.




Synopsis: A Citation Sovereign departing HPN Runway 16 on the WESTCHESTER SID experienced an NMAC with a departure off Runway 11 that had failed to comply with Tower's departure instructions.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm; Rain; Hail
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Was in cruise configuration with afternoon convective activity beginning. Had been in and out of a few clouds. Center advised of light to moderate rain ahead on my route of flight as I was penetrating clouds between two moderate rain signatures on the NEXRAD. The NEXRAD on my Garmin 510 showed the light to moderate rain as green and yellow signatures confirming the information given by Center. The image at the time of penetration was 3-4 minutes old. After penetration; we experienced convective activity and extreme lift making it impossible to hold altitude. Suddenly we had over 3;000 FPM registering on the VSI and hail hitting the windshield. I immediately did a 180 degree turn to the right and experienced a downdraft at 1200 fpm. I notified Center of the experience; conditions; the inability to hold altitude and evasive action taken. Center inquired if there was any noticeable structural damage and I replied none. Center then vectored us to the south of the convective activity with no further encounters during the remainder of the flight leg. When I viewed Flightaware to see what activity we flew through it showed green and yellow signatures. The following week when returning home; Flightaware showed a different picture with red; white and lightning signatures.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported encountering hail and significant updrafts and downdrafts after Center advised of light to moderate rain as he was penetrating the clouds and had to reverse course to escape.  His NEXRAD images of the rain signatures matched what Center had advised of.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABI.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ABI
ATC / advisory: Tower ABI
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was in my Tower pattern; making right traffic for Runway 17R. Aircraft Y was given left downwind for Runway 17R. I told Aircraft Y change to Runway 17L; Runway 17L clear to land; and he read it back. Aircraft X was on a 2-mile final when Aircraft Y turned base. I gave Aircraft Y; traffic 2-mile final; Aircraft X; for the parallel runway. Aircraft Y said; I thought I was cleared to Runway 17R. I said negative; Runway 17L cleared to land. At the time Aircraft X took evasive maneuvers. Aircraft Y landed on the right and Aircraft X said we are on the go with that near miss. Aircraft Y was given possible pilot deviation. I'm not sure anything could have been done different from a Controller stand point. Aircraft Y was cleared to land Runway 17L and he read it back. It was a pilot deviation.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported an aircraft turned base and lined up with the wrong runway; causing a NMAC with traffic on short final.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; MEL; Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: I was taking over a MAX 8 that had an MAX/MEL for Pressure Fueling System XX-XX-XX.   The outgoing Crew just had this MEL applied by MX on the Flight they finished.  I had a similar MEL on an NG twice in the last few weeks that required a 'repetitive write up' so I assumed that this one would require a repetitive write up also.  I looked up the MAX 8/MEL and it has a MUCH different format than the NG MEL but it lists repetitive write up in the beginning column instead of in the 'plain text' part of the MEL.  The outgoing Crew who just had the MEL applied by Maintenance in ZZZ said there was no repetitive write up required; so I called Maintenance to inquire because I believed that a repetitive write up WAS required.  Maintenance was also a little confused as if a repetitive write up was required. So based on my reading of the MEL and after talking to my Dispatcher I elected to do the repetitive write up on the three flights we did with that aircraft.I am writing this as I see there is some confusion on the repetitive write up in the MAX MEL as opposed to a similar MEL in the NG.  I could be reading this wrong but I believe a repetitive write up is required for MAX MEL XX-XX-XX.  The Dispatcher also wrote his supervisors to look into this.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported confusion over required repetitive log page entries that were required for MEL procedures.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LNK.Airport, NE
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E OMA
ATC / advisory: Tower LNK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X was transitioning the airspace surrounding LNK. When Aircraft X was 20 miles SE of LNK he called Lincoln Tower; for clearance through the airspace to JYR. I initially thought the pilot was calling for clearance at LNK for a departure to JYR. And after he didn't respond to me I noticed his location and Omaha approach had tagged him up; since he was in their airspace and needed to be talking to them not Lincoln Tower.Pilots are confused when transitioning through the LNK area airspace on who to contact for clearance. Several months ago the airspace changed names from 'Lincoln Approach/Departure' to 'Omaha Approach/Departure'. I think that pilots assume that since they are flying near Lincoln they need to contact us and not approach since they are not flying in Omaha area; which is 60 miles NE of LNK. The name for the LNK sector for approach needs to be changed back to 'Lincoln Approach/Departure' to decrease pilot confusion and increase safety in this airspace.




Synopsis: LNK Controller reports of confusion by pilots due to name change of airspace and facility telephony name.