elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 1 minute into tow; after receiving clearance from Ramp Tower to push off of gate and then proceed in the direction of Ground Tower; I was nearly run into by a young man working ramp and driving a tug. He decided to drive from east to west on a designated roadway across a taxiway; in front of a B767 wide body aircraft; with more than enough time to stop and wait. While I towed; it would have been impossible to stop completely. His actions caused a very narrow miss and certain serious injury(s).




Synopsis: Tug driver reported another tug almost collided with a B767 being towed by reporter.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight; the level one 'Batt Low' alert illuminated. The consequences were to land at the nearest suitable airport. We coordinated with our flight Dispatch [and] Maintenance and determined [which nearby] airport was the most suitable. Coordinated with ATC; and planned our return for landing. Fuel dumping was necessary and completed. All checklists were completed and landing was completed uneventfully. We had the benefit of good flight conditions; good operational support; and capable ATC to assist us in dealing with this event.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport after receiving a 'Batt Low' alert.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At FL410 we were cruising with very light Mountain Wave (MTW) at 52 NM west of Pueblo (PUB) VOR; we then heard (other carrier) request altitude block and deviation for severe mountain wave encounter at FL390; altitude plus or minus 200 feet; airspeed plus or minus 30 knots. The location of encounter was at 45 NM west of Pueblo crossing the Rockies. I did notice very slight variations at FL410; when suddenly this wave hit us (45 NM west of PUB); full strength the airspeed went straight beyond the barber poll 10 knots into VMO/MMO [maximum operating speed]; speed attained was 252 KIAS or Mach .83. I did everything in my power to abate the acceleration; ATS-OFF; Power Idle; and SPEED BRAKES FLIGHT DETENT. Our altitude variation was over 50-180 feet; Denver ARTCC gave us a 30 degrees offsite vector to the right with a block altitude FL410-390; and we reported the severe mountain wave. I used Control Wheel Steering Pitch to maintain level attitude; thereafter over PUB the event receded. It lasted only four seconds; but was definitely severe and unforecasted at that location. Both Maintenance and Dispatch were advised and a write up was entered.Preventative Measures: Better MTW forecast and predictions. Alternate routing. But the MTW was unpredictable and very localized; seemed in the wake of Pike's Peak.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported encountering severe mountain wave in the vicinity of PUB that resulted in speed and altitude excursions.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On date I had scheduled an evening flight for dinner. My original aircraft was still out past the time it would be back due to a checkride. The scheduler working offered me a different airplane that would return a little bit sooner than my originally assigned aircraft. The CFI in the new plane I was assigned told me all that was needed was fuel; therefore I topped it off after my preflight and departed ZZZ2. I flew an uneventful flight to ZZZ1 to pick up. Following that; we also had an uneventful flight into ZZZ followed by a normal and smooth landing. On the end of rollout; the engine quit and propeller stopped turning. After that; I attempted a Cessna hot start technique for a fuel injected engine. It did not start back up so I asked Tower for assistance and a tow back to the FBO. I called ZZZ2's mechanic and he flew out to me and got it restarted. We swapped airplanes and went home. He advised me that my plane may have over flown the 100 hour check. The 100 hour inspection was scheduled for the next day. It was crossed out for the next day on the schedule for the next day; but not for the day I rented.




Synopsis: Private pilot flying C-172 reported engine failure during landing rollout.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure; during initial climb; accelerating from 200-250 kts in clean configuration. Wings were level heading 360 approaching 6;000 ft. The right engine had a loud bang and the aircraft yawed to the right. ITT spiked; Warnings (RT Engine oil pressure; RT engine flameout) continuous ignition activated; N1 & N2 deceleration. Performed Emergency Action Card 'Engine Fire or Severe Engine Damage' checklist and CFM In-Flight Engine Shutdown and Single Engine Approach and Landing checklists. Briefed FA's and Passengers. Performed overweight landing approximately 77;000 lbs at softest possible touchdown rate. Stopped aircraft and taxied off runway and ARFF assessed the engine with thermal cameras. They informed us the engine was 'cool' and nothing was leaking from the engine. We taxied to gate and deplaned passengers. Line Maintenance met us at the gate and found visible damage at the exhaust end of the engine.Suggestions:Pilots following proper warm-up and cool-down procedures with the engines. Shorter time between overhauls on engines. Increased engine inspections by MX.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported right engine failure about ten minutes after departure. The flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While enroute operating IFR; deviating around buildups; we received an altitude alert from ATC. We immediately initiated corrective action and returned to our assigned altitude. At the time of the altitude alert we were off altitude by roughly 400 ft. While deviating around the buildups; we were experience moderate turbulence as well as continuous changes in updrafts and downdraft. I believe this was the cause of the deviation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving an altitude alert from ATC while deviating around weather buildups.
Date: 201306
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A B737 was cleared for the ILS Runway 25L and descending out of about 11;000 when I observed a target about 2 miles north of him tracking the 24R localizer outbound descending out of 10;000. It was on a discrete code. It continued eastbound as I issued traffic. After they missed; another target popped up at about 28 miles east descending out of 10;400 and somewhat converging with the B737. I issued the traffic and they missed by about 1 mile. It was also a discrete code. I asked for the Supervisor to come over and look while the same issue started to occur with a company B737; the next arrival to 25L about 7 miles in trail. The Supervisor had me immediately switch to single sensor mode as the Operations Controller had told him that one of the San Diego RADAR's had failed. Going to single sensor eliminated all of the false targets. FUSION; for all of its good qualities; has some glaring problems; among them the propensity to reflect targets or generate false targets. I have been through this situation of converging targets and pilots that are issued traffic alerts on false targets due to FUSION; and it has to stop. We; as controllers are losing the trust of the pilots when we issue stuff; in a somewhat harried way that is false information. If I cannot trust the RADAR display; I think reverting to a system that actually works would be a better and safer call. Maybe SCT has too many RADAR sensor inputs to make FUSION truly workable. Whatever the answer is; it has to stop; it is not safe.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described several false target events claiming that the FUSION RADAR continually produces target that do not exist; lowering the confidence of the pilots receiving the false traffic information.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was assisting a bathroom break for the flight deck. Both pilots were not wearing masks! The First Officer put the mask on when I went in. It is ridiculous that they are allowed to take off their masks in the cockpit. The Captain wasn't wearing his. I asked him; 'Where's your mask?;' He acted as if he didn't hear me. I was very very uncomfortable. It was like he violated my boundary. I am stunned this is a reality at our company. Since when are they allowed not to wear a mask? I hate to think that flight attendants need to deal with this absolute nonsense. If they are not wearing one before we go in; we are to deal with millions of droplets. It is the end of November. Well into the pandemic; if one doesn't understand the importance of wearing a mask; then why do we have them as company employees? It's a shame this became a political agenda. It never should have been.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the flight crew did not wear face masks on the flight deck while the Flight Attendant was assisting with lavatory breaks.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach after selecting the gear down we received a gear disagree warning message followed by a nose door warning message. The mains showed down and locked but the nose showed in transition. I delayed selecting addition flaps from 20 degrees to prepare for a go around and gave the gear some time to get down and locked. It took the nose gear a little extra time to show down and locked. After receiving a down and locked indication we continued and landed normally. After touchdown the nose wheel steering failed and would not reset. After parking at the gate Maintenance was notified. Final flaps were selected descending through 1;000 FT AGL.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain experiences failure of the nose gear to indicate a safe condition initially. The gear eventually indicates safe and a normal landing ensues. Nose wheel steering is found to be inoperative after landing but the Captain is able to taxi to the gate.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RUT.Airport, VT
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: This report is in regards to the ILS Z approach to RUT Runway 19. I have noticed what I believe is a discrepancy with the approach plate. The final approach fix for this approach is CEKRA. This fix is identifiable using the GPS or as 9.9 DME from the localizer. The approach plate shows the altitude to cross CEKRA on glideslope as 3;900 FT. On three consecutive days I flew this approach into Rutland. On each of the occasions I noted the aircraft's altitude at CEKRA to be 4;300 FT while on glideslope. Each approach was in a different airplane with a variety of weather conditions. I am not sure if it is an issue with the electronic glideslope; or an error on the approach plate. I am also not sure who best to forward this information to; but I think it would be appropriate to forward it to the proper area at the FAA.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the RUT ILS/LOC Z Runway 19 FAF CEKRA charted crossing altitude is 3;900 FT on glideslope; but his actual experience on three flights; has been a crossing altitude 4;300 FT on glideslope.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the BAINY ONE RNAV arrival to MSP; we were issued the clearance to descend via the arrival and expect runway 30R. Passing through FL180; we obtained the current ATIS and completed the descent check. I looked over the weather and we both commented on the fact that the winds were not as forecast; but we failed to realize that the time stamp associated with the digital ATIS was for XA:53Z. The current time was XL:44Z. The XL:44X was correctly displayed on the digital ATIS above the main body of the ATIS. Following the ATIS is where there was the time stamp of XA:53z. We set the published altimeter of 30.11 and continued on the arrival. We complied with all the crossing restrictions to the best of our knowledge until we were switched over to approach. The controller cleared us to descend to nine thousand feet. This was prior to the published crossing restriction of ten thousand feet and 250 knots at GOPHER. We followed the instructions and started to descend. We descended approximately 800 feet when we were questioned as to our indicated altitude. We were told they showed us at 8600 feet; assigned was 9000 feet. We were then told the current altimeter setting which was 29.52 and issued a clearance to return to 9000 feet. We set the current altimeter and climbed to 9000 feet. We were then notified that ATC was seeing multiple aircraft having issues with the digital weather. This was a nationwide event and that it was a result of SABER or Commercial Radio. We figured that since there was such a large altitude deviation; we needed to submit a report even though we were assured by ATC that we were OK and not in trouble. Lack of attention to detail and the inaccurate ATIS provided to us via ACARS. Attention to all the details of the ATIS. Double check when something doesn't match up; i.e. forecast and current weather. Cross check information.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reports obtaining old digital ATIS during descent into MSP resulting in descent below assigned altitude due to an incorrect altimeter setting. ATC detects the error and states that it is a nationwide event.