elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During our normal preflight duties; we input passenger and bag counts to the FMS. All of the numbers we received from cabin and ramp personnel; as well as our fuel load; seemed well within normal limits. However; the solution we obtained from the FMS indicated that we were out of balance; and needed to either move bags from the forward baggage compartment to the aft compartment; or move first class passengers to the aft cabin. We elected to move 8 bags from forward to aft; and received a solution that indicated we were within limits. During taxi to the departure runway; everything felt normal. First Officer performed the takeoff; and stated that as we approached V1; he had to push forward and trim nose down (from a T.O. setting of 8.4 to about 5.0) to keep the aircraft at the proper pitch. The flight was completed with a normal landing at our destination airport. For the return flight; we again received and input what seemed to be normal numbers. Again; the solution indicated an out-of-balance condition. At that point; we were obviously quite suspicious and called dispatch to suggest that the Basic Operating Index (or moment) may have been incorrect on their end. After a group effort coordinated by Dispatch; new moment numbers were put in the system for this aircraft. We reentered our load numbers; received a more reasonable solution; and completed the flight. We found out during our delay that the aircraft had been weighed prior to our first flight; and that incorrect numbers were put in the database system. I'm confident that that mistake won't be made again. That was the obvious cause of the incident I've described. However; both the First Officer and I had a strong gut feeling before our original departure that something just wasn't right. We should have acted at that time to resolve the issue rather than risk a departure stall. We got lucky this time. Moral: follow your gut.




Synopsis: A CRJ-900 had been weighed prior to the crew's first flight and incorrect numbers entered into the Basic Operating Index database which made the aircraft out of its normal trim limit for takeoff.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-4
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PC-12
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was a nice calm January day; and I decided to take my RV4 out for a local flight around the lakes area. Returning to my home base from the west at pattern altitude; I announced on the CTAF that I was 3 miles west entering crosswind for Runway 23. I then reported entering downwind for Runway 23 (6;500 FT long runway). As I was downwind I noticed an airplane in the run-up area for Runway 23; and another aircraft taxiing down to and nearing the run-up area for 23. I hadn't heard anyone else on the radio; and; the aircraft in the run-up area didn't appear to be getting ready to taxi out for take-off; so I decided to make a 'short approach' thinking I did not want to hold up the aircraft getting ready to go. I need less than 3;000 FT to land on the 6;500 FT runway. So; abeam the end of the runway I announced turning base for Runway 23. Shortly after I turned final and less than 100 FT AGL; I noticed a Pilatus PC-12 going by me on my right side; and making a go-around. I also decided to make a go around as I was a bit flustered and distracted. As I was making the go-around; and following the Pilatus around the pattern; I was trying to figure out what just happened; and how did I miss the aircraft on final. My thoughts immediately turned to the radio since I had heard no other traffic. I noticed that I was on the right frequency; so I reached for the volume knob; and sure enough I had it turned all the way down. The primary problem was that I had the volume on my radio turned down and just assumed there was no other traffic; and that the guys taxing just weren't saying anything yet. I often times turn it down when I am away from the airport. I need to ensure that I turn it back up when headed back to the airport. A contributing factor was my focused attention on the two aircraft at or near the run-up area. I should have made a closer look for aircraft on final.




Synopsis: An RV4 pilot turned his radio volume down during flight and after returning to his home CTAF airport had an airborne conflict with a PC-12 because he did not hear traffic position/intention reporting.
Date: 201411
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Similar sounding call signs. The PIT tower was calling our flight by a previous call sign (XXX8) we were (XXX6) I attempted to correct tower by responding with our proper call sign assuming it was a simple slip of the tongue. We were cleared for takeoff with that call sign. I then asked my captain if I had the wrong call sign. We confirmed the call sign and queried the tower who responded by canceling our takeoff clearance and asking our destination; [The Captain] responded with [his name and our destination and] Tower then issued a departure heading of 350 and re cleared us for Takeoff. It was a static takeoff. The aircraft did not move between the time were in position and the takeoff clearance was cancelled and we were re cleared for takeoff.




Synopsis: When there was confusion between ATC and the flight crew about their flight number the takeoff clearance was canceled and agreement reached between them.  A new takeoff clearance was then issued.
Date: 201508
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cargo door counter-balance inop and deferred. Makeshift wooden rod used to support door. Door could drop at any given time during the operation and injure an employee. The rod was a broken broom handle.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground employee reported a dangerous condition existed with a cargo door propped open with a broom handle because of an inoperative door counter-balance mechanism.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
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: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out heard a 'thump' that seemed to come from the forward galley area followed by a 'R DUCT LEAK' warning light and a ECIAS message R BLD DUCT LEAK. Followed QRH procedures and light went out. Conferred with Dispatch on the SAT phone and decided to return and accomplish an overweight landing because of two other EICAS messages (ENG TAI VALVE); uneven throttle positions; the 'THUMP' and a deportee on board. Other factors were also involved in the decision. A smooth overweight landing was accomplished; rate of sink was below 100 FPM. A major negative factor in a very heavy work load was the requirement to continually having to reset the frequency in the ACARS. The ACARS unit on the 757/767 requires us to continuously reset the frequency to the European frequency. The default setting is the US frequency. Thankfully we had the SAT phone to communicate with Dispatch; without it communications would be nil.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reports a 'thump' during climb out; followed by an 'R DUCT LEAK' warning light and an ECIAS message R BLD DUCT LEAK. After conferring with Dispatch the decision is made to return to the departure airport for an over weight landing.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D APA
ATC / advisory: Tower APA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Flight Engineer / Second Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: For years I have seen student pilots overshoot final when landing on the parallel runway at Centennial airport. More then a few close conflicts have occurred during the landing phase while I was on final approach. The recent mid-air collision at that airport was overdue; and it will happen again.  During my last visual approach to APA; Aircraft Y was on base at a collision course with my Aircraft X and we only saw it at the last second while it was turning finial.  A staggered spacing controlled by the tower controller would make things much safer.  At least staggering small aircraft to turn base after passing traffic on final would end the inherent danger.




Synopsis: Corporate jet pilot reported an NMAC with a small aircraft on approach to APA airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X reposition leg from ZZZ-ZZZ1. On climbout through around 10;000 ft MSL; copilot side AP Pitch Trim Fail Red CAS message illuminated once pilot flying engaged autopilot. After disengaging autopilot; PM noticed the pitch trim indication was inoperative. Aircraft pitch trim still was operational; but indication was not working. Crew referenced QRH and contacted company operations and decided to divert to ZZZ2.




Synopsis: Pilot reported diverting after the pitch trim indication system failed.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CNO.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: It was a typical busy day with many requests both inbound and outbound. Aircraft X called Ground Control on Taxiway Lima between the parallel runways requesting taxi to the northwest ramp. I issued 'taxi via Lima; Kilo; cross Runway 21 and hold short Runway 26 right at Kilo.' As the pilot read back the taxi route he appeared to hesitate and start a slight right turn onto Runway 21. I asked the pilot if he was familiar with taxiing between the parallel runways to which he replied 'no.' I then issued plain language instructions 'continue straight ahead and taxi kilo is the last right turn. As you make the turn the hold bars come up really quick so as you turn; slow to a stop.  The pilot acknowledged my instructions. As the pilot turned on Taxiway Kilo he passed the hold short bars. I immediately reached out to Aircraft X and told him to stop. At that time another aircraft was calling Ground Control with a request. Aircraft X stopped prior to the runway edge line. I then made Local Control - North aware and advised the Controller to send around the traffic that was on about a 1-1/2 mile final. I had issued the hold short instruction but in his confused taxiing I missed the hold short readback as I was attempting to stop the aircraft from turning on to Runway 21. The airport recently painted a yellow taxi line that leads off of Taxiway Lima and onto to Runway 21. I've seen several pilots get confused while taxiing and follow that yellow line inadvertently. The airport also painted some enhanced taxi lines and runway markings on the ground. I believe the yellow line leading off Taxiway Lima is and will continue to confuse pilots. I think additional signage in the midfield clearly showing taxi routes would help the pilots who continue to 'get lost' while taxiing in these hotspots.




Synopsis: CNO Tower Controller reported a pilot was confused by their taxi instructions and taxied past the hold short lines before the Controller could stop them causing an aircraft on short final to go-around. The reporter states new taxiway markings are routinely confusing the pilots.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were holding as published over SHINE at FL210. As we began the turn to the inbound leg towards SHINE; ATC re-cleared us to CLT via direct SHINE and to cross SHINE at 250 knots and 12;000 feet. I read back the clearance and informed ATC we would be unable the altitude. We were told not worry about the speed and to cross SHINE at 12;000 feet. I informed ATC we were 9 NM from SHINE with 9;000 feet to descend. We could not make the altitude. The frequency was congested and we did not hear back from ATC again until we were over SHINE at which time he told us to contact CLT Approach. We contacted CLT approach and told them we were still descending to 12;000. We crossed SHINE at approx 13;000 feet. I looked at our proximity to SHINE and the amount of altitude we needed to lose to make the crossing restriction. The rate of descent needed was 1000 per NM. This worked out to 3x the normal rate of descent. ATC would not issue us an amended altitude or relief on the crossing restriction despite that I informed ATC two times we could not make the altitude. I informed ATC twice we would be unable achieve the altitude by SHINE. Without an amended clearance; we did the best we could to make the restriction. ATC should have issued relief on the crossing restriction given our proximity to SHINE or allow us to do an additional turn in the holding pattern to lose altitude.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports being issued an unreasonable crossing restriction which is immediately pointed out to ATC. The speed portion of the crossing restriction is lifted; but the altitude portion was still not obtained; which was again pointed out to ATC without response.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Conducted normal preflight procedures and checklists and taxied onto runway. Began takeoff role but at rotation speed the yoke would not allow me to pull far enough aft to rotate. I immediately aborted the takeoff and taxied back to the ramp. After passengers deplaned I checked the control yoke freedom of motion again and found that it still would not allow full aft but did move farther aft than on the takeoff roll. I then noticed that the #2 VOR head was moving and not up against its glass face. This dropped VOR head must have fallen down during taxi or perhaps on my final control check when entering the runway and blocked the aft motion of the yoke.




Synopsis: C402 Captain experiences restricted control column movement during attempt to rotate and rejects the takeoff. Inspection reveals the number two VOR control head to be loose in its mount and protruding enough to block the aft motion of the yoke.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Inverter
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was cruising along at 11;000 feet as I was the pilot flying approximately 15 miles to the west of ZZZ. The flight was normal until I heard the sound of a circuit breaker pop from the captain's circuit breaker panel. Immediately after hearing the noise I looked over my shoulder and noticed a puff of white smoke rise from the panel and also noticed all of my instruments were flagged and inoperative. At this point I told the First Officer to advise ATC as I maneuvered the aircraft towards ZZZ. After the First Officer advised ATC I told him he was now the pilot flying as I took over the non flying pilot duties. We both prepared for a visual landing into ZZZ. He performed a normal lading and I taxied the aircraft to the gate. Saw smoke in the cockpit and took the appropriate actions to divert. Both the First Officer and I used our training and CRM skills to work together and land the aircraft safely with no injuries. Replace old inverters.


Second narrative: During cruise flight at 11;000 feet; primary inverter / Aux inverter CB popped. Electrical odor was present. Crew elected to advise ATC and divert to ZZZ.Caution / Warning lights. CBs popped; electrical odor. Malfunction of the primary / aux inverter


Synopsis: A DHC8-100 flight crew experienced the failure of the primary inverter detected initially by the sound of the circuit breaker tripping and a puff of white smoke; followed by warning lights. The crew elects to divert to the nearest suitable airport.