elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was from LAX to ZZZZ. During FMS loading we checked the downlinked flight plan vs the paper flightplan and Jepp plates and they all matched.When the KUSA clearance came in via CPDLC there was a route change. (Cleared to IGOTT VIA ZILLI LAUER+Load new rte to IGOTT+).We printed the clearance; and uplinked it into the secondary route on the FMS. We then checked the secondary vs the printed revision and the Jepp plate and accepted it.We then got the same CPDLC clearance again (and another load prompt). They all matched.We then copied the secondary route to the primary.But then I noticed two green lines on the pilot map display and thought the two routes loaded sequentially; so I cleared what I thought were the duplicate waypoints.As we were climbing after ZILLI; the Center Controller asked us if we were flying ZILLI.BEAUT; and I looked at our map display and told the FO to reply 'affirmative.'The Controller then said 'OK; turn right heading 210' and nothing more. A few minutes later he said 'can you verify your clearance.' I retrieved our CPDLC clearance and realized we were not flying the assigned clearance.In retrospect I believe that I had deleted the first part of our route (the revised segment) while leaving the original segment in the FMS.Cause: Assuming the revised route had been uplinked twice; and then deleting the top waypoints without double checking the remaining waypoints.I have had multiple CPDLC clearance revisions over the last few years; and they usually don't uplink properly; so I was surprised when this one did (or so I thought).I thought I had been diligent in checking the printed route with the uplinked route and Jepp plate route; but obviously not enough. In order to prevent this type of uplink/pilot error from happening again; I think the safest course of action is to NOT to uplink the revised route; but instead print it; enter it manually; and then 'clean up' (delete) the 'old' waypoints; and THEN check the entire route against the revised printout and Jepp plate.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on a trans-Pacific flight after the CPDLC clearance was not loaded properly.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PVD.Airport, RI
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C PVD
ATC / advisory: Tower PVD
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was providing On the Job Training (OJT) to a Certified Professional Controller in Training (CPC-IT) with moderate hours on position. While working moderate traffic in both volume and complexity a VFR aircraft; not talking to any controller; landed on runway 5 at PVD. Neither my trainee nor myself noticed this. We were focused on the traffic we were working and on the separation loss we had on final 10-20 minutes prior; both of which prevented us from noticing the target skirting around PVD and eventually landing.My scan failed; in my opinion; largely because I was stewing over the separation loss my trainee and I had before this event. My trainee reported that he missed it because he was too focused on working his other traffic. In the future we will both be sure to focus on our scans regardless of what has happened.




Synopsis: PVD Controller reports that while he was giving instruction on Local Control he and the Developmental did not observe an aircraft that landed opposite direction.  Controller reported he and Developmental were both discussing a previous loss of separation and did not scan correctly.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flew a 737 Max from ZZZ-ZZZ1.  During single engine taxi to [runway]; called for the delayed engine start with what I thought was enough time to reach runway at a normal pace and fully prepare for takeoff.  I even briefed the need to take into consideration the slow engine start cycle as part of the workload management process.  The engine start process took so much time that we were finishing checklists (at a normal pace) when we were cleared to line up and wait.  The checklists were complete and the FO (First Officer) and I both agreed that we were ready for takeoff prior to takeoff clearance.  As we took the runway; an LCA (Line Check Airman) on the jumpseat pointed out that the 3 minute warm up time was not complete.  We asked the Tower for 30 seconds on the runway and then took off.  The rest of the flight was normal. While the buck stops with the Captain; there were a few factors that led to this inadvertent deviation.  This leg was my 3rd in the Max.  This was a threat that was briefed in preflight.  While I knew we needed more time for the engine to start; it was much longer than I planned for.  Additionally; the FO did not start a timer after the engine start for some reason.  Because the FO did not call out that the warm up time was not finished; it was forgotten.  What I took away from this event was that the start sequence on the Max takes at least 6 minutes - approximately 3 for the start; and 3 to warm up.  Another take away is that even though FO's normally track this time and report it as necessary; I need to monitor this much more closely.




Synopsis: B737 MAX Captain reported failure to allow engines to warm up for three minutes prior to takeoff. Captain elected to request additional time for position and hold prior to takeoff.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DPA.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DPA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing 02L; taxi instructions were given by Tower and to remain on Tower frequency. Taxi instructions were right on Tango; left on Charlie; hold short of Runway 10-28. We read back instructions and continued as directed. After holding short of 10-28 we were cleared to cross on Charlie; then hold short of 15-33. We read back instructions; crossed with all lights on and continued onto Charlie. Upon reaching 15-33 we held short. We were then given clearance to cross 15-33 on Charlie; then Alpha to parking. We read back instructions and crossed 15-33 with all lights on. As we were crossing we noticed that another aircraft had just departed Runway 33 and passed over us; missing us by about 75 ft. above. We continued [on] Charlie; [and] as we were about to turn onto Alpha there was another aircraft on Alpha that apparently did not receive those taxi directions. Tower acknowledged this [and] told the other aircraft to turn around. Aircraft complied; [and] we continued Alpha to parking without further incident. No one acknowledged the runway incident on the radio. Tower seemed busy and may not have noticed.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Flight crew reported that while taxiing across a runway they had a near collision with another aircraft that was taking off from that runway.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CNO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In our Letter of Agreement with SCT we have procedures for data tag information on our practice low approaches. If an aircraft is southeast bound after an approach the data tag says IIL. The first I is ILS; the second I is Riverside Sector; the L means low approach. This means the aircraft will make a left turn southeast bound. If and aircraft is westbound after an approach the data tag says IPL; the P stands for the Pomona Sector; this means the aircraft will depart heading 260. In this instance; the aircraft data tag said IIL; but the pilot was told H260. We expected the aircraft to turn left and head southeast bound; instead the pilot told us he was H260. This time there was no loss of separation because we were slow. We have seen this scenario numerous times in the past few months that IPL will be in the tag and the aircraft makes an unexpected turn southeast bound into our downwind traffic. This is very dangerous as we do not issue traffic to them. SCT has also changed data tags after we have already cleared the pilot; without giving us a heads up. So the same situation occurs. SCT RAL/POM sector controllers need to put the correct information in the data tag; and they should not change the Data tag without some type of coordination.




Synopsis: CNO Controller voiced concern regarding SCT Controller's failure to comply with LOA requirement regarding Data Tag information. The reporter noted these failure could easily result in a serious safety event.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Travelair 95
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right gear retracted during landing. The only damage was the right propeller from rotation. No other damage.




Synopsis: Travel air pilot reported right landing gear collapsed during landing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Right before we were about to close the boarding door the CSA agent came down to the plane and asked if I was okay letting another Flight Attendant sit by me (working FA) in X4. I was under the impression that this is not allowed but the agent said it was fine. I did recall some flight attendants talking about this same situation happening on another flight and it was not allowed. The agent put me in a situation of being the bad guy and telling me the other Flight Attendant wouldn't get on if I didn't allow this. I spoke with the A FA and she said it was fine with her. I don't mind the fact that the other Flight Attendant was sitting next to me but I do know that our union made it; so we could social distance while sitting in our jump seats. I allowed it as I didn't know the rules to this. I later came to the back the FA in the back said that this was not allowed therefore the reason for the report.Please send out an email and/or bulletin so we know what the rule is. We need to stay consistent with information like this.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant felt coerced into letting a non-working Flight Attendant sit in a seat that was not supposed to be used because of social distancing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was ready for takeoff from an airport with continuous [parachute] jump activity. The AWOS recording cautioned all pilots to fly the full pattern and no midfield crossovers. I had asked the jump school/FBO if there were any specific takeoff procedures and they said; 'No; our jumpers know to avoid approach and departure ends of the runway.'Two jump planes departed and I taxied to the run-up area. After my run-up I heard 'Jumpers Away'; and I'm not sure if it was 13;000 ft or 18;000 ft; or one of each. I'm not a jumper; and have no idea how long from Jumpers Away to airport traffic area so I called on the CTAF and asked if there was time for me to take off. I couldn't see anyone when I looked up; although of course my view was not clear.  One of the jump plane pilots said yes. I immediately commenced takeoff roll. Just as I was about to rotate I saw jumpers on either side of the runway perhaps 800 ft above me and 1000 ft to the side of me. There were none directly ahead so I departed but I was a little shaken. In retrospect I realized the jump plane pilots don't have a great view of how close the jumpers are to the field; and the safest course of action for everyone would have been if I had waited. They did not seem to be concerned about my departure but it seemed to me like it was too close for safety.




Synopsis: The pilot of a single engine airplane was aware of parachute activity near the airfield; but was surprised on takeoff roll when he observed parachutists above and on either side of the runway.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing on runway aircraft yawed abruptly to the left; pilot overcorrected causing several oscillations till aircraft turned 90 degrees perpendicular to runway. Aircraft then went into grass to right of runway. Instructor took over and taxied to ramp. No one was hurt; but a propeller will have to be replaced. There was no apparent reason for the aircraft to yaw in such a manner to start the incident; landing was smooth and ideal. Minimal Crosswind and runway was clear; however snow was on the ground. Aircraft type has had similar incidents with other pilots.


Second narrative: I was instructing an advanced student on multi engine operations. This student had 10+ hours in type and was flying the aircraft well. The student's approach was excellent; right on glide path and speed; touchdown was normal and I relaxed as we were initially rolling out normally then the aircraft yawed right and the student over corrected left then back right at which time I took the aircraft. As the initial yaw and corrections took place there was a feeling as if the aircraft was on ice although the runway was bare and dry. As I took control it felt as if the tires were able to bite the runway and this accelerated our movement towards the right edge and I was unable to prevent an exit. I steered the aircraft back onto the runway and taxied to a parking spot. Inspection of the aircraft revealed that a Foreign Object Damage (FOD) damaged prop was the only aircraft damage.I can't account for this as I have only seen this once before and that was precipitated by too much speed on touchdown. The wind was reported as 230/09 with no gusts and we were landing on 19 possibly a gust before we had gotten all the weight on the wheels set off the event.In the future as the instructor I will remain vigilant throughout the landing roll; the old adage 'the flight isn't over until you set the brakes' applies here.


Synopsis: A light twin pilot and flight instructor reported a loss of control during landing that resulted in a runway excursion and damage to one propeller.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The Airport Diagram for MSY 10-9; revised Jan 2013; does not correctly depict Taxiway 'F' north of Runway 10/28.  The chart shows a 'F' label; but does not show a taxiway north of Runway 10/28.  The taxiway does exist on the field.




Synopsis: Two air carrier pilots reported that the MSY Commercial Airport Diagram dated Jan 2013 does not depict Taxiway F extending from Taxiway E north across Runway 10/28.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
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 Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cruising at FL360 over northwest FL; we hit severe turbulence. Airspeed was uncontrollable; altitude uncontrollable; and autopilot kicked off. Gained over 300 ft. and lost over 600 ft. before autopilot kicked off. Airspeed all the way up to redline then all the way down close to stall. We gained control of the aircraft and started a descent. We asked ATC for a block altitude and they came back and said descend to FL 340. We were out of the turbulence at FL 350. No one was hurt and we continued on to ZZZ. We did notice that the wind changed direction and speed. Up to 30 degrees and speed change was over 40 kts.


Second narrative: Cruising at FL360 in light to occasional moderate turbulence; we encountered an unreported area of severe turbulence. We were unable to maintain altitude and began a descent. I immediately requested a lower clearance; which was given. Made a PIREP and continued. No injuries among Crew or Passengers. Flight Attendants had been seated prior due to the expected moderate turbulence.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported severe turbulence and loss of aircraft control requiring evasive action.