elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When I arrived at the aircraft; my FO (First Officer) advised me that the flap indicator showed full down flaps with the addition of the yellow hyd pump switch 'ON.' My FO went down onto the ramp to check out the situation. He confirmed the flaps were in full down position. He also indicated to me that there appeared to be no mechanical work being done. We contacted Maintenance and they verified that there was no maintenance issue with the aircraft. At that time; I communicated with ground personnel to see if it was cleared to raise flaps. However; with all the activity around the aircraft; including refueling; it was not safe to raise flaps. I elected at that time; not to raise flaps until the area cleared.Unfortunately; I was informed just prior to push time; that the refueling truck struck a flap fairing when departing. The incident cause a 3 1/2 hour delay.


Second narrative: Arriving to the aircraft at the gate; I noticed that the flaps were lowered to the full position and the electric yellow hydraulic pump was on. I immediately went to do the exterior aircraft inspection to determine if maintenance was working in the aircraft. Seeing no abnormal action outside the aircraft; I contacted Maintenance and asked if they had any active action going on with the aircraft that would have the flaps in any position besides up. They did not so I turned off the yellow hydraulic pump and then we checked with the ground crew to see if the flaps were clear for retraction. Ground crew stated there was action under the wing and so we decided to wait until complete. Shortly thereafter; we were notified that the fueler's truck had hit the wing. I went down and checked the wing and found a dent on a flap track fairing on the right wing. Maintenance was notified and inspection began. From that point; we followed Maintenance instruction while waiting for guidance on whether the aircraft will be repaired or we will go to a spare.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a fuel truck struck their wing and damaged a flap fairing causing a delay.
Date: 201910
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During ground operations the First Officer set up the FMS and the crew briefed a Runway XXL departure in accordance with the current ATIS. At push; a new ATIS came out changing the departing Runway to XY. As the First Officer started the engines the Captain requested new takeoff data. After engine start; the First Officer loaded the new performance data and crew briefed the taxi plan and departure changes. Due to light traffic and short taxi; both engines were started prior to taxi. ATC taxi clearance was 'taxi to Runway XY via X'. I do not recall ATC mentioning taxiway X1 intersection during either taxi or takeoff clearance. Before takeoff checklist was accomplished during taxi and was complete prior to arriving at Runway XY/X1. Both crew members verified 'Runway XY' and took-off normally and without incident with over 3;000 ft. remaining at liftoff. Takeoff data used was for full length and not for X1 intersection where takeoff was initiated. The company pages mention Runway XY at X1 departures. I did not 'read to understand' the full text during preflight study as we were planning on departing from Runway XX. When reviewing the new taxi flow after engine start; I had the diagram blown up with Runway XY on the bottom of the screen. This essentially blocked the view of Taxiway Y on the opposite side of the runway which is where you go for full length takeoff. This led me to assume we were doing full length; because Taxiway X1 is the furthest to the end of the runway on the terminal side.It was a unique taxiway configuration. Rarely do you have to cross a runway to get to a full length. It was dark. Taxiway Y on the other side of the runway was not obvious and the displaced threshold was mistaken for under run. I was expecting to be at the end of the runway. The taxi and takeoff clearance did not mention or allude to an intersection takeoff.It was a late runway change. Although all checklists were accomplished; I failed to literally zoom-out and see the big picture. I did not feel fatigued however; I had a 01:00 AM wake-up. This is not my peak performance time of the day.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported confusion and loss of situational awareness resulted in an inadvertent intersection takeoff.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Level 8000 msl. PHL Approach vectoring us off of JIMMS2 arrival; approximately 10-12 NM south of TLUUKS; for Runway 9R. TCAS TA alert for an aircraft 400 feet below us. Advised ATC of TA. ATC advised us of traffic at 7500 msl. TCAS RA alert with 'monitor V/S' guidance. Complied with RA guidance. Advised ATC of RA. Once clear of traffic conflict; flight continued normally. [Recommend] fewer non-participating aircraft in vicinity of arrival corridors.


Second narrative: PHL Approach vectored us off JIMMS2 arrival for RWY 09R. TCAS/TA for aircraft 400 ft below ahead of our aircraft. We advised ATC of traffic. ATC reported traffic. We received RA and reported RA to ATC. No deviation required for RA. Complied with RA guidance. When clear of conflict we advised ATC and continued normally without further event.


Synopsis: EMB-190 Flight Crew at 8;000 feet experiences a TCAS RA generated by a VFR aircraft at 7500 feet but shown as -400 on the TCAS display and visually 200 feet laterally. The RA is to monitor vertical speed and no deviation is required.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: GSO.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class C GSO
ATC / advisory: Tower GSO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: General Safety Concern-  VASI for Runway 23L GSO. There is a lighted windsock adjacent to and in close proximity to the VASI for 28L. The windsock has a RED light mounted on top. When you are on ILS 23L approach and lined up on LOC and Glideslope; at BRANT OM the RED windsock light actually is visually aligned with the leftmost of the VASI light system.  The RED light on the windsock is actually so bright it overpowers being able to see the leftmost WHITE light on the VASI; causing the leftmost light of the VASI to appear either RED or PINK. This phenomena occurs from BRANT OM to around 500 feet AGL where the windsock light is no longer in alignment with the visual sight path to the VASI; and the effect diminished as the lights diverge. When you are on glide path from OM BRANT to 500 AGL the normal  WHITE-WHITE-RED-RED of the VASI appears to be RED-WHITE-RED-RED. Windsock should be relocated away from VASI system.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reports that a red light atop the windsock for Runway 23L at GSO aligns precisely with the left most VASI light for the same runway. This means that an on glide path indication is red (pink); white; red; red from the FAF to about 500 feet AGL; causing confusion.
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout the Standby Attitude Indicator (SAI) started making a grinding noise and became very unstable/shaky. As time went on; it became very loud and shaking worse. It had become very distracting both visually and noise wise. It was VFR to destination so I sent a message to Maintenance Control to see what they thought about pulling the overhead panel Circuit Breaker (CB) labeled NAV Stby Horizon at location F12. They said if I desired to do so; I would have to use my Emergency Authority. The First Officer and I both felt the instrument was a major distraction and useless like it was; so I elected to pull the CB. To our suprise; this action did NOT remove power from the SAI! So I left the breaker out and upon touchdown the flag dropped into the face of the SAI and it subsequently spooled down. We could find nothing in the flight manual that explained this. Upon arrival after accomplishing the checklists; I called and visited with Maintenance Control about this. It appears there is a CB in the E/E compartment labled STBT INST/BATT that controls a relay that latches the SAI to the Hot Batt Bus when the normal power source is removed. This has to be what happened in this case. I am very well aware of how important the SAI is; but I find it hard to believe we cannot remove power in a case like this. It was so bad; that I was wondering if the instrument could get hot enough to be a fire hazard.

Callback: Reporter stated that on touchdown the SAI went dead; apparently due to the squat switch indicating the A320 aircraft was on the ground and now conditions were OK to remove (shut-down) electrical power from the Hot Batt Bus to the SAI. But the inability to remove all power from the SAI under conditions he describes is still a concern; especially since the SAI got so hot. He has not had any response from his Air Carrier about his report.



Synopsis: Pilot reported the Standby Attitude Indicator (SAI) in an A320 making a grinding noise and becoming very hot; unstable/shaky on climbout. Pilot pulled the Overhead panel Circuit Breaker (CB) labeled NAV Stby Horizon at location F12; but that action DID NOT remove electrical power from SAI. Reporter stated another CB in E/E compartment labeled STBT INST/BATT controls a relay that latches the SAI to the Hot Batt bus when the normal power source is removed.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at FL410 in cruise flight. We experienced a loud 'bang' from the #2 (right) engine followed by increasing ITT (Interstage Turbine Temperture) and engine vibration. We advised ATC of our situation and requested a lower altitude. During our descent; the smell of jet fuel was entering the cabin and cockpit. At that point; we notified ATC; did a precautionary engine shutdown and planned our diversion. ZZZ [airport] was located 50 miles to our right.  The airfield had all the resources we would need. We accomplished all checklists and landed uneventfully. At the time of the event; the weather was Clear VFR at FL410. We had three (3) passengers on board and no baggage.




Synopsis: Beechjet 400 Captain reported experiencing an engine failure while at cruise altitude resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were en route to MCO. The route was significantly north of what was normal because of a line of weather. We received a message over ACARS that we thought was from Dispatch recommending that we change our route to head direct to OCF which is one of the initial fixes on the PIGLET arrival into MCO. We assumed Dispatch could see that the weather had broken up and was suggesting for us to head that way. The weather was beyond our radar to get a good look so we asked ATC and headed that way.As we headed that way we could see that we were going to have to deviate back north. Shortly after this Dispatch inquired why we were headed that way to which we responded; 'you recommended this route'. They responded they did not and this was an independent message sent by this new system that the company purchased and they were unaware of the message being sent to us. Later we found out there was a bulletin [on the new system] that came out; but it was issued after we had left for our week of flying. The issues I am having is: 1. The message appeared to be from Dispatch. 2. It was sent without conferring with them to see if this was a good idea. 3. There appeared to be no correlation with real time weather concerns. 4. There was no attempt to educate crews about the new system other than the normal bulletin process which we were not able to get because we were gone. 5. It was made by a system that has no jurisdiction to communicate with us about flight matters. It should have come from dispatch and not some uninformed vendor or program.

Callback: The reporter advised that--after numerous complaints from flight crews reflecting the concerns expressed in his report--the company rescinded the use of the program on at least a temporary basis until it could be programmed to include Dispatch in the information loop prior to issuing the recommendation to flight crews.



Synopsis: An A300 flight crew modified their planned/cleared route of flight based on an ACARS message they believed to have been sent by their Dispatcher. When the reroute directed them toward weather around which they had originally been routed they discovered the suggested reroute had come from a service newly contracted by their company which forwarded the change without prior consultation with the Dispatcher responsible for the flight.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Other unknown
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: This flight was scheduled as four-man crew.  We decided to divide the rest up in half for this flight. I opted to take the first rest period so I could be up for the second period as I might be encountering weather enroute in the last two or three hours of the flight.  The flight was uneventful until the last two hours. The conditions were dark - no moon and no lightning associated with the cumulous clouds. I had my radar on the 40nm scale and the First Officer on the 80nm scale. We were looking at the stars and looking for any potential weather. We were cruising at FL400. We flew through the top of a cumulonimbus cloud that was not painting on the radar. We encountered moderate turbulence for about a minute and then we were back in the clear.  After flying through the top of that cloud; we saw three more off in the distance on the radar. The First Officer and I decided to climb higher and deviate around the cells.   The max altitude on the VNAV cruise page was FL434.  I opted to ask for FL420 and requested it.  The controller then came back and approved a block altitude of FL410 to FL430.  I put the mask on and climbed to FL424 hoping to clear the tops.  Next; I asked for a 20nm right deviation around the weather. The First Officer then deviated to the right of the weather splitting the two green cells by a few miles. We avoided flying through the cells; but were in the tops of the clouds as we encountered severe turbulence. The position of North 16 degrees; East 154 degrees.  We lost 25 knots airspeed with an 'airspeed low' caution message; the aircraft could not maintain altitude. We lost 400 feet and the yoke stick shaker was rattling.  I kept the autopilot engaged. The turbulence felt like it went on forever but only lasted a minute or two. The aircraft recovered with no injuries and no altitude violation.  I asked ATC to descend to a lower altitude of FL400. I also reported the severe turbulence to ATC and the company.  No emergency was declared. We continued onto ZZZ1 with no further incident.




Synopsis: 747 Captain reported encountering severe turbulence at cruise altitude and loss of control of the aircraft.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approaching for landing on VFR cross country flight after checking local airport information. I was set up to land when the sunrise absolutely 'blinded me' during the flare stage. I initiated a go around and the aircraft failed to get enough lift and 'porpoise' nearly 1;200 feet off the runway; before eventually coming to a complete stop.Thankfully no injuries to passengers; nor to the airport; with amazingly; minimal damage to the aircraft!




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna was blinded by the sunrise during landing; attempted a go-around; which resulted in a runway excursion.