elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZZ, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were delayed out of ZZZ1 [airport] due to ZZZ Center being closed for a 'COVID cleanup.' Dispatch sent us a new release with a route that took us well west of ZZZ Center's airspace. Following takeoff and soon after leveling off at cruise altitude; ZZZ1 Center asked if we wanted to stay on that route; or get a short cut. They offered: Route Y (Original: Route X). The FO and I discussed the short cut; and I sent a message to Dispatch indicating we were going to accept this new route.Our thought was ZZZ2 and ZZZ3 Centers had divided up ZZZ [Center] airspace and were providing radar coverage for this route; though it appeared that normal radio coverage would be lost north of ZZZZZ [Waypoint]. We were instructed to contact ZZZ3 Center 35 miles north of ZZZZZ. We were indeed asked for an ETA for ZZZZZ; but we were never told radar coverage would be lost. When we checked in with ZZZ3 [Center]; we were told we were in radar contact.Dispatch sent a message later in the flight to call upon landing. There was a question as to the legality of flying through 'domestic' airspace without radar coverage. (Dispatch used the term 'uncontrolled' airspace.) I explained I was unaware we had entered 'uncontrolled' airspace since we were in Class A airspace. I explained; I thought the centers had provided coverage through the route; but we had an area where radio contact on regular frequencies was lost.I am writing this in case we inadvertently entered domestic airspace without adequate ATC control and unintentionally violated a company policy.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported not knowing if they were legal to fly in domestic Class A airspace in an uncontrolled environment after a Center had gone ATC zero.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach into ZZZ that was flown through severely inclement weather. Captain (CA) recognized issues with the approach and called for a go around; however CA had a tendency to not speak up during the flight. As such; it took 2 calls for the First Officer (FO) to realize the CA called for a go around. CA kept hands on the throttles after calling for go around thrust; flaps eight. FO got distracted by trying to set both thrust and retract the flaps and never called 'positive rate' informing the CA that the airplane was climbing. The gear was not retracted prior to reaching speed limits. Once the gear was up a 'gear disagree' warning message was observed and not addressed correctly. CA and FO had issues with communication during the entire trip. CA failed to speak both loudly and clearly enough to communicate with FO. FO failed to address communication issues and simply sat back and did what was required rather than work to get the CA and FO into a shared mental model about how they were going to operate the plane and manage the cockpit during the trip. Weather on the approach was not significantly discussed; nor was weather radar used to the appropriate level. CA and FO did not brief the approach in enough detail; and FO was not considering a go around as a possibility; and as such; was unprepared for both the go around; and the procedures and correct calls required during a go around. FO's frustration with lack of communication from CA allowed the FO to 'disconnect' from the flight and not be actively involved during the approach. FO should have found a way to address communication issues with the CA and not allow those issues to allow the FO to disconnect from the flight. FO should also be thinking about the possibility of a go around and practice both call outs and procedures.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported deviating from SOP during a go-around; in part because of poor CRM with the Captain.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAX.Tower, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C JAX
ATC / advisory: Tower JAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach at night visual to Runway 26 in the Jacksonville. I was the pilot monitoring with the first officer as the flying pilot. We were given a visual approach and he [turned] off the auto pilot at approximately 1;000 feet. At the 500 feet call he was stable; I don't recall the exact altitude after 500 feet as I was heads up looking outside and I noticed three red and one white on the PAPI. I did observe he was getting low on the glideslope. We had the ILS backed up and when I looked up; I saw four red and instructed him ' four reds; level off' we also received the oral warning glideslope at the same time. He did respond and leveled off approximately two to three seconds later and I saw the three red one white again. Landing was uneventful.It is also worth noting that we were into a 13 hour duty day due to weather delays and rescheduling.Also; worth noting was both Approach Control and Tower stated that they were receiving PIREPs of 40 knot headwinds until a 4 mile final. In actuality the winds were gusting up to 40 all the way to about a 1 mile final.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that while the First officer was hand-flying a visual approach; they descended below glide slope and observed four red lights on the PAPI. The crew leveled off and continued to landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at Cruise altitude (FL 340); we received a Cautionary Message (ECAM) ENG 1 & 2 BLEED FAULT. We completed the emergency actions directed by ECAM which left us with no operational PACKS and a rising cabin altitude. We advised ATC and began an immediate descent to 10;000 ft. and requested a diversion to ZZZ; about 60-70 NM away. We made an uneventful landing at ZZZ at normal landing weights and without O2 masks deployed. We estimate the maximum cabin altitude reached 9;000 ft. We were dispatched with an inoperative ENG 1 Bleed which was already under placard.


Second narrative: While at cruise FL340 we received an ECAM message ENG 1&2 BLEED FAULT. We completed the ECAM actions which left us with no operating packs and a rising cabin altitude. We advised ATC; began an immediate decent to 10;000 ft.; requested priority handling; and requested a diversion to ZZZ. We made an uneventful landing at ZZZ at normal landing weights and without O2 mask deployment. We estimate the max cabin altitude reached 9;000 ft.Placarded Engine 1 bleed.


Synopsis: Crew reported diverting after engine bleeds failed on one engine and the other engine bleeds were already on MEL; causing loss of pressurization.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: EICAS/EAD/ECAM
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL350 we detected the scent of burning electrical wiring. This was followed shortly by failure of the EICAS; popping of EICAS circuit breaker and noticeable heat from the aircraft's center instrument panel. Small amounts of smoke were observed. Crew executed cabin smoke memory items; diverted to the nearest suitable alternate and landed uneventfully. After landing; no further smoke was observed by the crew. CFR observed no exterior anomalies; so we deplaned normally via jetbridge.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR flight crew noticed smell of burning electrical components and some smoke; followed by the failure of the EICAS. Crew declared an emergency and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Initial descent into ZZZ; engine roughness and loss of power (300-400 RPM). Applied carb heat; engine continued to lose power; requested priority with tower; squawked 7700; maintained altitude and airspeed until landing at airport was assured. Landed plane without incident and taxied to FBO.


Second narrative: Initial descent from 3;500 feet MSL engine roughness drop of 300+ RPM. Was pilot not flying. Pic pulled carb heat. I requested priority; squawked 7700. Engine made partial power until landing.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported engine roughness on approach to landing. They were able to continue to a precautionary landing.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While preplanning the release for Flight ABC ZZZ-ZZZ1 arrival time XA45Z; [Flight Planning Software] advised the Dispatcher with the following message:  NO ALTERNATE RECOMMENDED - ZZZ2 INPUT THRESHOLD-ALT...DONE ON DESTINATION STATION ONLY PER [FLIGHT PLANNING SOFTWARE] RULES The weather/forecast for ZZZ1 was as follows: A) 22005KT P6SM OVC035 TEMPO 2716/2721 -RA OVC035 B) 30005KT P6SM -RA OVC035 TEMPO 2721/2800 4SM -RA BRC) OVC 025   D) 14006KT 5SM -RA OVC025 TEMPO 2800/2806 3SM -RA BRE) OVC015     F) 14006KT 5SM BR OVC025 TEMPO 2806/2810 3SM -RA BRG) OVC015                        Note lines D and E above in the weather forecast; [Flight Planning Software] is advising the Dispatcher to violate FAR 121.619. Because of Dispatcher interaction; ZZZ2 was added as alternate for ZZZ1 thus ignoring the [Flight Planning Software] automated message advising to violate FAR 121.619. There is an obvious fallacy in the [Flight Planning Software] program or the team who developed the program does not understand what is required to determine alternate weather minimums per FAR 121.619. Eliminate [Flight Planning Software] until this product can provide a useful purpose to the Dispatcher; otherwise it will continue to mass produce unnecessary messages that will be ignored since it is advising inaccurate and false direction for the Dispatcher to implement.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher does not agree with the automated weather software assessment that an alternate airport is not required for the conditions; and expresses his concern about the validity of the flight planning software.
Date: 201303
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After initial taxi from our pushback position facing north; we had to make an abrupt stop to avoid getting too close to an RJ taxiing on Bravo from our left. The stop resulted in the Purser and one other Flight Attendant getting injured. We were very conscious on our initial taxi of the aircraft parked to our right. Our speed was slow due to concern for jet blast directed back at the Concourse. The RJ approached from our blind spot on Taxiway B from our left. Our initial taxi clearance was 'After the RJ on your left; taxi to 32L T10 via Alpha; Alpha 7; Tango.' We had an RJ to our left on Alpha in sight. The traffic; apparently; was the RJ on Bravo. The relief pilot saw the threat RJ first and alerted 'STOP! STOP!' My first thought was that we were going to run over someone or something imminently. The Captain stopped the aircraft.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer describes a near collision with a RJ during initial taxi out of the gate. The brakes are applied vigorously by the Captain; resulting in two flight attendant injuries.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Final Approach to Runway 4R we were cleared for the visual by HNL Approach Control and handed off to HNL Tower. Tower advised us of a low altitude warning and [and also that the] minimum vectoring altitude for the area as 1;500 MSL. [We then noted] [t]he autopilot had not leveled off at the altitude selected of 1;500 [MSL] and continued a vertical speed descent of 500 FPM. The co-pilot indicated that he could not identify the airport repeatedly and I was continuously pointing out Runway 8R and the buildings along Runway 4R. At 700 MSL I noticed the descent and leveled off at 600 MSL prior to the altitude alert from the Tower; only then did I climb to 1;000 MSL which was the appropriate altitude for the aircraft in the landing phase of flight. This was a violation of 14 CFR Part 135.203. The aircraft had no Terrain Warning System capability. I; the Captain; was used to flying single pilot and very rarely flew with another pilot. The situation occurred late at night.




Synopsis: After they had been cleared for a visual approach to Runway 4R at PHNL the flight crew of a teuboprop twin engine medivac flight became emboiled in a dispute over having the airport in sight and failed to note the autopilot had not captured the programmed 1;500 MSL minimum altitude. ATC provided a low altitude alert with which they complied and completed their approach and landing.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The lower rudder indicator display was reversed.  [With] left rudder input; the lower indicator moves to the right; not left.  We probably flew this plane six times over three days without recognizing the discrepancy. We were aware that the plane had been serviced for a defective lower rudder indicator the day before by review of the logbook; so we were alert to check its operation.  When performing the flight control check as part of preflight; we saw movement of the indicator when the rudder was moved; when the flaps were lowered we saw additional movement of the upper rudder indicator; as expected.  Somehow we missed the fact that the lower rudder display was reversed.  I cannot explain how we misinterpreted the display for so long. We saw movement and must have interpreted it the way we expected it to be; not the way it actually was. The first day we picked up the plane was rushed. However; we talked about the pressure and slowed all of our preparations down so we wouldn't shortcut anything; yet we still missed the display reversion on our first flight; then carried that oversight through several more days. I am reminding myself of the expected indication before I run a checklist item; so as to break the complacency or rote response I may have built up over time.


Second narrative: [Narrative contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: C750 flight crew noted on preflight that the lower rudder movement indicator moved in the opposite direction of actual rudder movement. Discrepancy was noted after several flights had been flown in the same aircraft.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: 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: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the First Officer and Pilot Flying on Aircraft X from ATL to ZZZ. After reaching our flap retraction altitude of 1;000 feet we began accelerating to 200 knots and the flaps were retracted to zero. At approximately 1;500 feet AGL we encountered the wake from an Airbus 321 which rolled us in both directions. I turned off the autopilot and countered both rolling moments with approximately 3/4 aileron deflection. We received the stick shaker momentarily at approximately 190 knots. The Captain requested an offset track from the Airbus. We were given a right turn towards a different fix a few minutes later. The flight continued with no further incidents. Calm winds and close proximity to the Airbus 321 during takeoff. [Suspected cause.]

Callback: Reporter stated he was surprised at the intensity of the Airbus wake.



Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer; reported encountering wake turbulence departing ATL in trail of an A321.