elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CYMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Before push back and before taxi we received our clearance from ground and notified apron advisory on 122.4 of our intentions per Jepp chart pages 20-9 and company page.  Passing gates 5 and 4 we contacted ground advisory on frequency 121.8 stating we were ready to taxi.  Ground advisory told us it would be nice; or some version of that; for us to have called them earlier in case there is a conflict. Both the First Officer and I noted that we were not yet on taxiway F as it begins after the hangers. We were issued taxi instructions and then complied with those instructions. To our knowledge; the ramp up to that point is uncontrolled. We made all of the appropriate calls based on that knowledge. Our assertion was that other crews have been calling ground before moving on the uncontrolled ramp.  So that call is what ground advisory was expecting.  Since; we did not knowingly violate any restrictions and the controller did not state that we were in violation; we did not file an report.  Upon being notified of this event we re-read the company Jepp page and noticed a note at the beginning stating 'when tower is operational contact ground for pushback'.   We were following the instructions up under the 'outbound' section which evidently did not apply.  The main taxi page; 20-9 still implies the cargo ramp is uncontrolled.  Also; in Jeppesen Airway Manual- North America- Canada Airport Data- Montreal-Mirabel;  it states 'Main and Cargo aprons uncontrolled; broadcast intentions on 122.4 before maneuvering.'  So we thought we were following the rules and restrictions as stated.  According to our chart; It did not seem we had entered taxiway F before getting taxi clearance. Failure to notice the note at the beginning of the narrative that told us if the tower is open to contact ground before pushback. Reconfigure the company page placing the note to contact ground before pushback under the outbound instructions. After receiving our clearance maybe ground could add contact us on 121.8 prior to push back.  Re-writing the taxi instructions to incorporate the requirement to contact ground before moving on the cargo ramp.  If taxiway F begins on the ramp; the signage needs changed along with the taxi chart.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported the crew were unaware of the need to contact ground control before pushback on the cargo ramp.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll around 100 KTS I lost my airspeed indication on my Primary Flight Display (PFD). I immediately looked over to the First Officer's PFD; noticed his airspeed indication was normal; decided to continue the takeoff; and verbalized 'continuing.' I rotated when the First Officer said rotate. We raised the landing gear and around 200 FT AGL we got a master warning; master caution; and several ECAM messages with the associated CRC and chimes. We also lost our flight directors; auto thrust; and the Autopilot 2 would not engage. I transferred control to the First Officer and tried to sort through the ECAM messages using our Non-Normal Methodology. We had the following ECAM Warning Messages-AUTO FLT RUD TRV LIM SYS; AUTO FLT A/THR OFF; AUTO FLT; F/CTL ELAC 1 PITCH FAULT; F/CTL; NAV IAS discrepancy. The Maintenance post flight report recorded all of the above messages at our takeoff time. Some of the ECAM messages cleared with no action and some did not. Some ECAM messages reappeared after a few seconds and it was difficult to determine which messages were valid. The last ECAM message NAV IAS discrepancy remained and I accomplished the ECAM Action by switching the air data switch to CAPT on 3. I got back my airspeed indication and then more ECAM messages reappeared. The First Officer and I decided to declare an emergency and return. I felt that with the multiple chimes every 5-10 seconds and computer faults we could not safely continue to destination. Computer faults; maybe pitot static system faults. [I] had a rest of 9+31 (block to block) prior to this duty period. This rest includes travel time to the hotel and 1 hour reporting time and did not provide 8 hours sleep. All airlines should implement the new FAA rest rules now.




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences loss of airspeed indication at 100 KTS and continues the takeoff; noting that the First Officer's indications are normal. Once airborne; many ECAM warnings associated with the loss of ADR 1 are annunciated. With the Captain's PFD using ADR 3; airspeed indication returns; but other anomalies remain and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff; above V1; the First Officer's flight instruments became erratic and unreliable. The Captain's flight instruments were erratic; but reliable (confirmed with the emergency back up instruments). Numerous faults were alerted. An emergency was declared and a safe landing was made at the departure airport.




Synopsis: MD11 Captain experiences erratic flight instruments after V1 during takeoff. An emergency is declared and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MMU
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X; C210 IFR on Visual Approach to our Runway 23 (Point out/hand off taken approx 15 miles out) made first contact with MMU Tower approximately 5 1/2 to 6 miles. At the time I had other operations in progress at the runway. When I checked progress of Aircraft on the RACD; it was rapidly approaching from the West; range approximately one mile indicating same altitude. In the initial contact; pilot stated that he had a (Cessna) in front of or between him and the airport. I had no time to issue traffic as the aircraft were already together. I issued landing clearance to aircraft and asked if Approach had issued the traffic. The pilot replied in the negative. ZZZ1 Tower called advising that one of their pilots said something about a close call. I could not make out clearly the full gist of what ZZZ1 Tower was trying to tell me. I called the FBO and requested they have the pilot of Aircraft X call me in the Tower. When the pilot called; we discussed whether the incident warranted the filing of a NMAC report and the decision was made to file. The pilot also indicated that he thought training was in progress on Approach Control. In speaking with ZZZ1 Tower; it was determined that the other aircraft involved was Aircraft Y; a C172; and that the pilot seemed 'shaken'. Shortly after; my Tower Manager told me that since both aircraft were operating visually that there was no NMAC. That appears to be a personal interpretation. Although the AIM mentions a definitive 500-foot proximity in this definition; it goes on to allow the pilot; or flight crew member; to make a determination as to if a collision hazard existed regardless of how close the aircraft came to one another. More pilot education is needed on the part of some operators. A large amount of their traffic arrives from the West; crossing our Runway 23 approach area. My FLM has previously issued a letter the the local Aviation Community describing the hazard associated with this airspace.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller described a conflict event between IFR arrival traffic and VFR traffic transiting the area. The incident prompted a discussion on the interpretation of a NMAC and the rules governing same.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: #2 eng started losing oil roughly 900 sm from ZZZ; at XZ55Z  I called ZZZ Tower at XA08z and [advised ATC]. ZZZZ Tower was also advised the flight might be diverting to ZZZZ. Flight continued on and landed in ZZZ.  I need to add; flight crew and [Maintenance Control] was conferenced in at XZ44z via SATCOM. At that time it was determined that they crew could continue with the flight. (The engine was down 9qts at XZ44z and had 6 qts left at XZ47z.)




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported flight crew shut down the number 2 engine due to loss of engine oil and made a precautionary emergency landing.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X. ZZZ to ZZZ1. During takeoff right before cruise altitude. Other flight attendant; Name and I noticed a smoky cabin with a burn smell in the front. The Captain was informed. We walked around feeling for hot spots to find the source where the smoke was coming from. The smoke has eventually left. Captain informed us when we were on the ground it had something to do with the rampers disconnecting the hose and the APU which caused the hazy smoke in the cabin.




Synopsis: Flight Attendants reported smoke in the cabin after take off. Smoke dissipated. Captain reported that the ground crew did not disconnect the air start cart supply hose correctly.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Tower, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We took off on runway 31C with the Midway2 departure. Initial heading assigned was 090. The SID states for runway 31C to fly a 318 heading to 1500 feet before turning. It also states in a separate section; to complete initial turn within 4 DME. We took off; climbed to 1500' and started our right turn to 090. Tower told us to increase our rate of turn and gave us a heading of 110. They said we were approaching the SID boundary and turn to 130. We complied and I don't believe we exceed[ed] the 4 DME requirement. I feel the wording of the SID could be clarified. The climb to 1500 before turning and the complete your initial turn within 4 DME could be written in the same section of the SID for the particular departure runway. To comply with both of these requirements I assume you are supposed to stand the aircraft on its tail through 1500' and then crank it around to the 090 heading while leveling off at 3000'.

Callback: Called to clarify winds at the time of takeoff; which may have played a factor. Reporter stated that winds were from the northeast (nearly a direct right crosswind). He added that most of the airline aircraft were taking off from runway 4. He suspects that they were given 31C due to their parking location on the airport.



Synopsis: During the initial phase of flying the MDWAY2 departure procedure; crew was instructed by ATC to increase the rate of turn and continue the initial turn to a new heading. Captain recommends that the wording of the SID be improved by including the requirement to complete the initial turn within 4NM in the same section as the limitation of not commencing the turn until reaching 1;500 feet altitude.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SKED.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center SKED
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: As an added threat; the SKBO/BOG (date) 10-3H OSOSU 1R RNAV SID at or below altitude depictions can be deceiving. For example; the depicted crossing altitude for OSOSU is At or Below 17;000 feet" yet the MEA for the next segment BUV is 17;000 feet. Because the blue crossing altitude depictions are so prominent compared to the smaller MEA numbers; a crew could easily cross OSOSU too low for terrain clearance. The crossing altitudes in this case should depict Minimum and Maximum altitudes. In contrast; the SKBO/BOG 4H SID 10-3G depicts appropriate/safe crossing altitudes."




Synopsis: First Officer reported the SKBO/BOG 10-3H OSOSU 1R RNAV SID at or below altitude depictions can be deceiving. Because the blue crossing altitude depictions are so prominent compared to the smaller MEA numbers; a crew could easily cross OSOSU too low for terrain clearance.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At XA:36; a baggage tug runner with 2 carts crossing the ramp from the X concourse on the interline baggage route (between 1 and 2 on the X and 3 and 4 on the Y concourse) did not yield to aircraft traffic Westbound on the XX line. The Ramp Tower controller alerted the flight crew of the tug and carts; at which time the crew advised they had the tug in sight. The tug; which is supposed to give way to all traffic while using the interline baggage route; did not yield to the aircraft; which had to come to an abrupt stop; less than 25 feet from the cart. The City and County of ZZZ was notified; and Airport Operations was dispatched in an attempt to track down the tug runner; but they were unable to identify the cart and driver. The Ramp Station Operations Supervisor was also notified. The station's camera system was down to start the morning; and did not come back up until XA:37; 1 minute after the incident occurred.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an aircraft came to an abrupt stop after a baggage tug with two bag carts failed to yield at a zipper road crossing a taxiway.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PBI.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: Tower PBI
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approximately 1 mile final at an altitude of about 500 ft. we encountered a white quad copter drone hovering off our left wing at approximately 400 ft. Drone operator operating in an unsafe manner.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a NMAC with a Drone.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We reported for duty at XA:44. Just prior to report; our first turn was cancelled. Our crew was never notified. We stayed on duty; sitting at the airport to fly our last leg to ZZZ at XG:39. The aircraft arrived late at around XH:00. We approached the gate at this time and the agent was just beginning to print out the dispatch release. We departed with 80 passengers and a legal release for ZZZ. There was no incident with the flight until we arrived and pulled into the ramp. There was no personnel on the ground to greet us (ramp/gate). We called ops on the phone and radio with no answer. I sent dispatch an ACARS text and followed up with a phone call. On the phone; I was told that the flight had been cancelled and we should have never left. We were never notified of the cancellation. The departure station was unaware as well. We had a legal release; flight plan and all paperwork for a normal flight. Somehow; the flight was cancelled by dispatch after the release was generated and no one was notified. I'd be happy to expand on this further if anyone wants to talk about it. We were very discouraged to find that Dispatch was not tracking our flight and did not know we operated. It's equally troubling that a cancelled flight was allowed to operate and no one (aside from ATC) even knew where we or the airplane were. I was not contacted by scheduling or dispatch all day (despite cancellations) until this mistake was realized.


Second narrative: We operated our flight as scheduled. We arrived in ZZZ to find out from dispatch; that we operated a cancelled flight. The crew was unaware of this action; as no one was notified of any changes to our schedules. We received a legal release and other paperwork for the flight. Operations in the departure airport was also unaware of the cancellation; so we departed as scheduled.


Synopsis: Arriving at their destination; EMB175 flight crew finds no company personnel about nor will anyone answer a radio or phone call. Dispatch is contacted and the crew is informed that their flight had been canceled but neither the crew nor the departure station was informed.