elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We pushed off of the gate and had briefed a quick taxi expecting Runway 18L for the LILLS 6 departure. All checklists and flows were completed. As we were holding short of Taxiway C; ground told us to expect departure following a 757 which was two planes away for sequence. Shortly after the 'expect for sequence'; we were asked to monitor tower frequency. Captain decided to depart without using flex since we were following a 757. I completely agreed with this decision. As we were both trying to get rid of the flex numbers and get new numbers for departure; tower changed our sequence to the airplane in front of the 757 which was right in front of us at Taxiway C and rolling onto Runway 18L. Tower also told us to expect to 'keep rolling'. As we rushed to get numbers; taxi checks twice (flap setting changed) and before T/O checks done; we were cleared for T/O. We did complete all flows and checklists prior to T/O. After T/O; the captain noticed the FMS/flight director leading him to turn into Runway 18C departures. The captain did not turn into Runway 18C departures. I tried to input HISOR into the FMS but the FMS would not accept it and shortly HISOR was behind us. After we realized that we were having issues. We reported the FMS issues to departure control and requested vectors which gave us enough time to correct or pick/up the LILLS 6 departure. The captains operational knowledge of CLT prevented us from getting into a potentially bad situation. Departure was helpful with vectors. The rest of the flight was uneventful.I can't pin point an exact 'why' for the event. The environment was 'rushed' from taxi out to take off. Both of us on the flight deck briefed and verified Runway 18L 'inside and out'. I have experienced information 'falling out' of the FMS before. I'm thankful the captain (flying pilot) was situationally aware enough to realize what was going on and fly the airplane.




Synopsis: CRJ200 First Officer reports a rushed departure from Runway 18L at CLT with a clearance for the LILLS 6 RNAV. Once airborne; the flight director indicates a right turn; which the Captain ignores; and it is quickly determined that the FMC is set for a Runway 18C departure.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While working Local Control West (LCW) a SR22; was conducting a city tour with Local Control East (LCE). LCE advised me that the SR22 had the Airbus in sight. Due to his proximity; no traffic call had to be made while clearing the Airbus for takeoff. Once the airbus was at the departure end of Runway 27; I realized the SR22 had moved closer to the airport; and issued a traffic advisory to the Airbus and informed the pilots the SR22 had them in sight and would maintain visual separation from them. No separation was lost. Maybe have more restrictions on the aircraft that are conducting city tour when departing Runways 27 or 33L.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reports a possible conflict between an A320 departing Runway 27 at BOS and an SR22 flying over the downtown area.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA; Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were descending on the new COMIX 1 STAR. Center started us down late. We had a 70 knot tailwind and Center directed us to fly 270 knots. All these reasons prevented us from making the crossing restriction we were given. We notified Center we would not make it as soon as we determined that it was not possible; and the Controller asked us why not. We told him. He questioned our reasons as if they were not valid; and then said nothing; thus producing the situation that we did not make an altitude restriction without having relief from ATC.The older BAYVU Arrival and the new COMIX Arrival have crossing restrictions that are very hard to make with the airspeed and altitude requirements; especially with a tailwind. They should be revised to have more reasonable restrictions.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported failing to comply with a crossing restriction on the new COMIX 1 STAR.
Date: 201403
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Today from XA00L to XI00L I was taking my System Transition desk check. At XE50L the Head Dispatcher on duty walked down to the conference room where my desk check was in progress; and informed me that I have been junior assigned for a XQ00L shift tonight. This puts me in a double quick turn situation because the Company has also scheduled me for a XI00L shift tomorrow. It takes me approximately 1 hour to get home from work. I came home from work after the desk check and attempted to get some sleep to prepare for the XQ00L shift. I have been unable to get any useful sleep thus far. I am extremely tired already from the exhausting desk check. I would not be able to safely exercise operational control as a dispatcher tonight for the shift I was junior manned for. I would likely be even more fatigued for the XI00L shift tomorrow the Company expects me to work on the double quick turn. Not only now am I being junior manned or threatened to be junior manned every single weekend of my days off; but now I am also being expected to work 3 full dispatch shifts in 2-day periods. Expecting dispatchers and flight crews to report for multiple consecutive quick-turn duty assignments is not putting safety first.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher completing a training exercise was told he was assigned a dispatch shift eight hours after this training completion; but he complained because he needed an hour each way to and from home. The following day he had another shift after an eight hour break leading to continuous and unsafe fatigue.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were starting the number 2 engine at the beginning of 16R in ZZZ.  While starting the engine tower called and cleared us for takeoff.  We had been waiting for our EDCT (Expected Departure Clearance Time) time to ZZZ1 and were being released a little early.  I responded that we were just starting our second engine and that we would need a bit.  Tower said that's fine but that we were still cleared for takeoff when ready.  I let the aircraft roll up to the runway while we were in the engine start.  After the checklists were complete and the needed warm up time we took the runway.  It was the FO's (First Officers) leg so once lined up I said 'your controls'.  We were doing a rolling takeoff.  Just as he was about to; or had pushed the power up we got an advisory message that said 'fuel feed 2 fault'. As it was not a warning or caution or any other item we had briefed for a rejected takeoff I told him to continue.  Once at a safe altitude and cleaned up after takeoff I ran the QRH for the message that remained.  The QRH said 'Don't takeoff' end of procedure.I don't really have an answer for this.  From the folks I've talked to more about this the advisory message we received should have come on sooner or not at all till after we were above a certain altitude.


Second narrative: Cleared for takeoff; I advanced thrust for takeoff. As we started rolling we got a fuel pump something status message (not a warning or caution or anything we should abort for). I called it out. Captain says continue. I did. After cleaning the plane up CA (Captain) pulls out the QRH to read up on that status message. It ends with 'DO NOT TAKE OFF'. Got to ZZZ1 where MX cleared the message. One cannot memorize all status messages. As it wasn't a warning or caution or anything that affected the safe outcome of flight the CA decided to continue. It was not an abort worthy item per the sop as such we continued. If it should be then it should be added to the SOPM.


Synopsis: During the takeoff roll a flight crew receives an advisory message yet continues the takeoff. Once at altitude it is discovered that the message should have warranted a rejected takeoff procedure and the crew should have remained on the ground.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Pilot flying observed [a] drone flying 50 feet above us just outside of final approach fix. No actions taken. Notified ATC.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported sighting a drone nearby while on approach to PHL airport.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On descent on the ANTHM 3 Arrival into BWI; as we neared CURBY intersection we noticed on the flight display the RNP/ANP numbers were amber. It displayed 2.0/4.04 respectively. I begin looking at the NAV status to see if we still showed 2 GPS. We were handed off to Washington Center. When I checked in; the Controller asked if we were on a heading because we appeared to be not on course to BUBBI. I confirmed we appeared to not have proper RNAV function. We were given a heading and continued descent altitude and told expect radar vectors to BWI. As we started our new heading we saw RNP/ANP display turn back to white showing 1.00/.04. I informed Washington Center we had RNAV capability again and we were told to fly direct ROKTT and resume the ANTHM 3 Arrival. We proceeded on the arrival with no further issues.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported while on approach ANP was greater than RNP. ATC confirmed aircraft off course.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center 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)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; we were climbing thru FL 320; when we felt a vibration in the aircraft. We continued to filed altitude of FL340. As the power was reduced at level off the vibrations abated some; but soon became more intense. They were cyclic in nature; and increasing in intensity. They are best described as the type of vibrations heard when the N1 rpms are not in sync; but these were more intense and could be felt in the airframe. The N1s were within .1; and the engine vibration monitor showed N1s at .8; the N2s at .6 throughout. We observed no flight control anomalies or airframe buffet. The vibrations directly increased with power increase; and decreased with power reduction. We decided to slow from .78M to .75 and descend back to 320. The vibrations decreased; but as we leveled at 320 and the power came up to hold airspeed; the vibrations returned; and over the next few minutes continued to increase in intensity. At that point we decided to divert. We set up a slow speed (250) descent; and the vibration was minimal until power was required to configure for approach; when they returned. Approach and landing were uneventful. Thanks for great support from ATC and the fire crews. The First Officer also did a great job in coordinating the divert and support throughout the event. (We had deiced prior to departure; and considered whether ice had formed in the engine. However; we had used engine anti ice throughout the departure; were in the clear by 5;000 feet; and had no vibrations at all at climb power settings until FL320.)




Synopsis: An A300 Captain reported diverting because of an engine vibration which increased with increased thrust. The aircraft had been deiced prior to departure but was in VMC during cruise.
Date: 201202
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise the Captain and I noticed that the wing tanks were starting to decrease in quantity with fuel in the center. We executed the appropriate checklist and successfully stopped the fuel from decreasing from the wings. After talking to Dispatch and Maintenance we concluded that we had plenty of fuel to continue the flight. We asked Dispatch to run a weight and balance for landing and were assured we were well within limits. As a precaution we declared an emergency since we were in an abnormal fuel situation.




Synopsis: MD82 First Officer notices wing fuel beginning to to decrease in cruise with fuel remaining in the center tank. Checklist procedures are complied with; reversing the trend and allowing the flight to continue to destination.
Date: 201812
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The company has released a mobile app update - available on your iPad; which has included the ability of the lead mechanic to self-upgrade to inspection and complete RII (Required Inspection Item) inspections. This ability appears to be in direct violation of both FAR's and the company policy as written in [the] Maintenance Procedure Manual. The ability to self-assign by leads of them self is directly in violation of the reporting policy in this [Company Maintenance Procedure Manual] as well as page [X] leading and direction prohibition. I have emailed the Chief Inspector and QC Management with my concerns and am sure it will be reviewed. As this was released and leads could follow this path I feel urgent action is needed. This may well be the path the company wishes to go but I have to raise the concern for safety of our passengers and crews as well as our aircraft. Also at issue is a failure of compliance with FAR's and company policy. I recognize this may just be an overreach by a programmer.

Callback: Talked with reporter and he said that the policy change did not come with any justification or explanation supporting the ability to allow a Lead Mechanic to inspect the work that he directs since that is the sole purview of the Inspection department which is separate from Maintenance.



Synopsis: Air carrier Maintenance person reported that new air carrier company policy has just been issued allowing Lead Mechanics to upgrade themselves to Inspector to complete RII (Required Inspection Item) inspections.  This is in direct contradiction of the policy of keeping Inspection an independent function separate from Maintenance to allow proper check and balance.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During a VMC Cross Country from ZZZ to I66 and at a position ~7 NM southwest of the MRB Airport at 2;200' MSL traffic was observed approaching from 11 o'clock high on the Avidyne TAS-600 displayed on both the Avidyne MHD and the Garmin GTN-750.  The traffic was acquired visually at 11 o'clock.  This traffic was not displayed in the same position by the Garmin GDL-88 on the Garmin GNS-430W.  Instead; the traffic from the ADS-R was displayed incorrectly at 1 o'clock.  The altitude deltas matched.  Download of ADS-B data confirmed the TAS position but did not substantiate the ADS-B position.  It appears that the ADS-B uplink is providing spurious traffic information and this incorrect information could cause a midair collision in an aircraft not also equipped with TAS or TCAS.  The discrepancy was photographed using a 3MP camera setting and the discrepant positions are clearly visible.  Checking with the FAA via RAND revealed confirmation of the TAS traffic track and no explanation for the ADS-R traffic position.  It appears that ADS-R is defective.  Similar occurrences are noted about 5% of the time; two prior ASRS reports on this discrepancy have been filed.

Callback: The reporter stated that he believes his TAS-600 to be problem free so far but he has had several flights where the ADS-R traffic reported by the Garmin 750 was inaccurately positioned.



Synopsis: A pilot reported a traffic position error when his Garmin 750 ADS-R displayed traffic at 1 o'clock; but it was acquired visually at 11 o'clock and corresponded with a Avidyne TAS-600 target.