elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SMF
ATC / advisory: Tower SMF
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was PM. On taxi out I noticed Aircraft Y parked just clear of 34L; on Taxiway A8. We proceeded normally for takeoff; completed checklists; and received takeoff clearance for 34L. Aircraft Y was still parked on Taxiway A8 facing east. Our takeoff roll was normal and we started rotation approximately around Taxiway A10. Passing Taxiway A8; our aircraft experienced an abrupt left roll due to the jet blast of Aircraft Y. We were approximately 50-100 ft in altitude. Passing 1000 ft; we configured for climb and I mentioned to the Captain that 'I knew that was going to happen.' Tower gave us the handoff to departure. Before switching frequencies; I mention to Tower that even though I assumed Aircraft Y was at idle power; we received a significant jet blast induced roll at rotation. I also mentioned that A8 wasn't the smartest place to park Aircraft Y.I noticed this hazard on taxi out and minimized its significance. I had experienced a similar situation in a different aircraft over 10 years ago. I failed to mention the hazard to the Captain and/or Ground Control. I write this report to highlight the hazard for SMF Ground Control and general Pilot awareness.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an uncommanded roll shortly after takeoff due to the exhaust stream from a parked aircraft with engines running pointed toward the departure runway.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During flight; I received ACARS from Dispatch that the weight and balance from load planning was in error and it was 'crazy off'. We took off thinking takeoff weight was 133.0; it was actually 127.5. The flight departed normally and I didn't feel any abnormalities. There was no way I could have known the error in weight and balance; the release showed an expected TOW of 135 so it seemed in the ballpark and the flight had also been delayed for 6 hours and had 4 filed flight plans with ATC per ZZZ1 clearance delivery.There was no possible way for my crew to know this was calculated incorrectly. Thankfully the aircraft was less weight than planned. If it was 5k more than planned that could have had serious consequences. I'd like to have an investigation into how CLP (Computer Load Planning) could be so far off from actual weight; at this point my confidence is not very high with trusting CLP to give me the correct performance numbers that I rely on to complete my duties safely.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that a miscommunication with Dispatch caused the aircraft to depart 5;000 pounds under planned weight.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Please check out the recently revised ILS approaches to Rwy 34 L & C at Seattle.  It appears to me that their missed approaches are not properly coded in the FMC database.  There are fixes that the narratives say should be crossed at 3;000 FT; THEN climb to 5;000.  The FMCs show 3000A; but should be 3000B.  I see nothing in our flight paperwork referencing this.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain advises the FMC database in his aircraft type misprograms the altitudes on the MAP procedures on the SEA ILS 34L&C approaches stating the intermediate fixes (WEXUB/34L COYLA/34C) and are to be crossed at or ABOVE 3;000 MSL while the texts of both procedures state that the climb to 5;000 should begin at those fixes; thus requiring 3;000 MSL to not be exceeded until passing.
Date: 202005
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: Oil Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately one hour into the flight I noticed the right engine oil quantity was at 0. I checked pressure and temperature on the right engine and pressure was normal 30 psi. So I thought maybe it was an indication issue. After about 20 minutes Pressure was down to 24-25psi. I Arinc'd Dispatch and Maintenance Control to get them in the loop and the response from Maintenance was 'follow your procedures'. Since I had no EICAS I continued. After another 15 minutes we were down to 18 PSI and the indicator was now yellow and psi was still slowly dropping. I called Dispatch back and initiated discussion on diversion as I was coming up on the Rocky Mountains and was obviously slowly losing oil PSI and had reviewed the QRH and knew if it got to red line it was a mandatory shutdown and there was over 2 hours left to fly.My thought process was to error on the side of safety and try to get the airplane on the ground before I would be forced to shut down the engine over the Rockies and put my crew and plane into a potential emergency situation. Dispatch gave us  a good place to take the plane. Approach and landing was normal and upon landing Oil PSI was at 12 PSI. After block in it was determined oil tank was empty; and oil was leaking out of the bottom of the case at the rear of the right engine. Direct communication to the Chief Pilot or Duty Pilot to get another opinion and perspective would have helped in making communications go more smoothly.




Synopsis: A pilot reported diverting due to an oil leak in one engine.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I witnessed the Supervisor; who was working Local Control; Ground Contol and the Operations Desk combined have what I would call a near mid air. He had Aircraft X in the right pattern for the runway. Aircraft Y ready for IFR departure at the same runway. What I witnessed was Aircraft Y turning to avoid Aircraft X on the upwind. I heard the Supervisor tell Aircraft X if able turn your crosswind now (he wasn't even at the departure end of the runway; maybe 4;500 ft. down the runway) He then told Aircraft Y [that] Aircraft X was turning crosswind. Aircraft Y then corrected back and continued straight out. The Supervisor told Aircraft Y to start his 315 heading and contact departure. Aircraft Y did not turn until 2 1/2 miles upwind which at that point I had Aircraft Z on the upwind off an adjacent runway.I listened to the tapes because I initially thought Aircraft Y was departing a different runway however after reviewing the tapes he was cleared for takeoff on the same runway as Aircraft X. Aircraft X must have just touched down for his touch and go when he cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. There was obviously no runway separation which is 6;000 ft. or turned to avoid when Aircraft Y started his takeoff roll. I also heard on the tapes what sounded like Aircraft Y stating he was deviating to avoid. And then later state 'I'm correcting back'. I tried to see the replay but wasn't able to log into the system. The reason I'm reporting this a few days later is because I wanted to review the tapes and was trying to get into the replay system to see if additional separation was lost with Aircraft Z and Aircraft Y after my days off.




Synopsis: Controller reported the Local Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff with insufficient spacing behind a previous slower departure which resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 201701
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel; Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: B737 Contained 121 bags in pit 3 and the aft was empty; I was the lead assigned to this fly. before the aircraft arrive I notice that only 2 agents were schedule to work this offload; I inquired if there will be any help to run the bags so we could make our delivery time of 25 minutes.Unfortunately the answer I got was that because of the busy schedule not to expect any extra help. I went on setting out my gate being a 737 I was looking for a tail stand but I found that the only 2 tail stands in station were being use. So I have to receive [the 737] without a tail stand and with only 2 working agents. As we receive the plane I decide to prevent any tail tipping to hook up the push tractor and tow bar to the plane. This make me lose some time according to management however I consider that it was a necessary extra step for safety reason. After my crew unloaded the first few bags I had to stop the process for a couple minutes since the aircraft was risen from the nose. As it lowered down we continue offloading and sent my first 2 carts of bags away. I was left with only one agent to finish the offload; we finish the offload about 13 minutes later. However we miss the delivery time of 25 minutes and I was approach by the management and got a verbal warning about time management. I said in my defense that is unrealistic to have only 3 persons working a fly without the proper equipment 'tail stands'; and it's unsafe to rush one person in the pit to scan and offload at the same time 120 bags within a 25 minutes time frame.




Synopsis: A ramp agent reported having to unload a Boing 737 without enough help. Also he didn't have a tail stand available so he took extra time and hooked up the tug to keep the nose on the ground. All of this led to him exceeding the expected unloading time of 25 minutes and he was approached by management about why this had happened.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach all indications were normal for landing. I landed within the touchdown zone and when I needed to use the brakes the left pedal went all the way to the floor with no brake. I then used aerodynamic braking to slow the aircraft while maintaining directional control. Once the aircraft was at a slower speed; I used the right brake a little to slow the aircraft to a stop on the runway; hitting one end light. Passengers were deplaned without any injuries and without further incident.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna 402 discovered the left brake ineffective during the landing roll-out. He was able to slow the aircraft but contacted one runway end light prior to stopping.
Date: 201811
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified that I loaded a 'smart' bag. The bag made it into ZZZ from a down line station; made it to the bag make up area; was noticed by an employee; set aside; [and] then reloaded by another employee. When [bag room] noticed that the bag was missing they came out to the gate to retrieve the bag. We were able to remove the bag with no issues.




Synopsis: Ramp personnel removed smart bag from connecting flight which was improperly configured for cargo shipment.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Never before have I been closer to crashing an airplane than today when I discovered yet another hazard at Teterboro Airport (TEB).  I was about 6 miles northwest of TEB when I was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 19.  I was number 1 for the field and I was told to keep my speed up because I had numerous jets behind me.  I maneuvered for a right base to the runway and contacted the Tower.  About 2 miles out; I started getting GPWS warnings about obstacles.  I looked outside and saw buildings well below my altitude so I wasn't concerned.  About 1.5 miles out I was shocked to see a 600+ foot tall radio antenna pass about 50 feet low and about 250 feet off my left wing.  Just after I passed the antenna; Teterboro Tower called to warn me about it.  Talk about a day late and a dollar short. By the grace of God; I missed the antenna.  I was shocked to see it.  Afterward; I reviewed the situation in an attempt to figure out what went wrong.  Why didn't I know the antenna would be there?  I was able to pick out the antenna on the ILS 19 approach plate.  But while the antenna was within a normal approach slope to the runway; on the approach plate it was mixed in with a bunch of obstacles half as tall.  Shame on me for not noticing the obstacle when I briefed the ILS 19 approach.  But it would have been helpful if there was some sort of point-out that that particular obstacle would impact a normal approach to the airport.  Also; shame on me for disregarding the GPWS advisories when I thought them to be irrelevant.  In the future; I will attempt to respond more appropriately to those advisories.  However; since the obstacle wasn't readily visible - even on a clear day - I'm not sure how I would have maneuvered instead. In my 3;000+ hours of flying; I have never seen such a blatant hazard to navigation.  I don't understand how that antenna has not yet caused a tragedy.




Synopsis: CE340 Pilot reports ignoring an EGPWS warning during a right base visual approach to Runway 19 at TEB; caused by a 694 foot radio tower a half mile right of final and 1.6 miles from the runway end. Even though daylight VMC prevailed the tower was not detected visually until it passed by the left wingtip 50 feet below. A late advisory was issued by the Tower.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working the EMPYR arrival scope for LGA.  I had 1 VFR Eastbound at 9;500 FT and about 7 or 8 IFR arrivals; some on the STAR and some on vectors.  I was using EWR RADAR which is typical for this position and provides the best coverage to the southwest; which is where the initial arrival fixes are located.  I suddenly lost all MODE C altitude readouts; both on my targets and on all other targets on the scope.  After notifying the CIC and waiting a few minutes to see if the condition would self correct; I was forced to switch to JFK RADAR.  The targets displayed correctly; however we cannot take hand offs as early as on the EWR RADAR.  Recommend to analyze the technical data to see what happened and provide some kind of solution/redundancy.




Synopsis: N90 Controller noted a sudden failure of Mode-C information while utilizing the EWR RADAR site; forced to switch to JFK RADAR; the reporter noted this RADAR site limits hand off operations.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Circuit Breaker / Fuse / Thermocouple
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing the Remove/Replace (R/R) of APU Battery during P-45 Check in ZZZ; discovered at the P-49 Panel C/B A-4 RAT AUTO/MAN CTRL deactivated with a lock out tag device. The P-49 Access panel was secured closed and cargo tape had to be removed to permit access for the scheduled battery change.The information attached to the lock out tag was not relevant to the operation in ZZZ. Pictures were taken and sent to Management for review. The root cause to this event is outside of my area of responsibility. I cannot answer why it occurred as we were not the responsible party.[Notified] Management detailing the location and the event. We performed a verification for other lock out tags associated with the RAT System. There were no other tags discovered. There were no visual related EICAS Status Messages and a review of the Maintenance Access Terminal (MAT) confirmed no associated maintenance messages. The aircraft was returned to service after a successful operational check of the RAT Auto Deploy System.I believe there are checks and balances in place to prevent occurrences like this from happening as long as we have procedural compliance. One suggestion would be a RAT drop on the Test Flight Phase of C-Checks. Maintenance Manager. During Phase Check Maintenance. RAT AUTO DEPLOY System.

Callback: Reporter stated the RAT would not have deployed in an emergency due to the AUTO/MAN CTRL switch was electrically deactivated with the C/B pulled and locked out at the P-49 Panel in the Aft Cargo pit sidewall. The cargo tape was applied around the P-49 Panel access door as part of the Cargo Smoke containment requirements.  No other information at this time as to who; or what; contributed to the RAT C/B lock-out not being removed.



Synopsis: A Maintenance Manager reports finding Circuit Breaker (C/B) A-4 for the RAT AUTO/MAN CTRL deactivated at the P-49 Panel with a lock out tag device installed during a Remove/Replacement (R/R) of the APU battery in the Aft Cargo pit. The B777-200 aircraft was in for a Maintenance Phase Check.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our final descent I kept getting a faint smell of dirty socks; after a few minutes of it I told the B Flight Attendant (FA) about it and she came up to see if she could smell it. After walking up and down the aisle she said she did not smell dirty socks; but she did smell a musty odor. She also sat down to my level in a seat near my jumpseat and said she did not smell the dirty sock odor. Also there was a non-revving pilot on the window who said he did not smell a dirty sock odor either. Once we started taxiing to the gate the faint smell came back so I got up to see if someone had their shoes off but everyone around me had their shoes on. As soon as we pulled up to the gate the smell became very strong and the non-revving pilot agreed that he smelled it also. I then called the A FA to let her know so she could tell the Captain and I also informed the B FA.




Synopsis: A330 flight attendant reported noticing a 'dirty socks' smell in the cabin.