elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Copilot was distracted by line personnel during initial walk around.  Line personnel offered to 'pull the pins' and copilot agreed.  Copilot did not verify that line personnel pulled the pins AND the pitot covers.  The pilot in command and the mission specialist both boarded the aircraft and missed that the pitot covers were still on the pitot tubes.  Normal start and taxi sequence of events were uneventful.  On initial takeoff; pilot not flying announced that there was no airspeed indications and called for an abort.  Pilot flying aborted uneventfully.  After returning to the chocks and shutting down engines; it was discovered that the pitot covers were left on the pitot tubes.


Second narrative: Some time ago; pitot tube covers had red streamers attached to prevent this type occurrence; but were removed and/or rolled and secured by plastic ties; by unknown personnel.  These should be reattached.  Pitot covers need to be orange.  Rolling up the streamers on the pitot covers is an unacceptable practice. Add 'pitot covers' verbiage into the Starting Engine Checklist


Synopsis: CL60 flight crew reported the First Officer failed to remove the pitot covers on walkaround; citing the absence of red streamers on the covers as contributing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RPLC.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower RPLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: We were told to taxi to runway 02 via delta and F7 hold short of runway. We asked again to make sure. Tower confirmed the routing. The FO said this is normal; referencing the several times he had been through Clark this year and last year. We followed the instructions. I noticed no fillets going from taxiway Delta to F7 so we did a standard over-center turn to ensure the main gear track on centerline.   We took off. [Dispatch] said a Capt flying there next wanted to know how we got in and out of Clark as it had been a while. After explaining what we did over SATCOM we noticed the restriction on F7. Pointing to a section not suitable for wide body aircraft. I attached it. The AMM actually shows the taxiway getting wider as you taxi toward the runway. I attached that as well. I think the restriction should be for the pad just off the F7 taxiway between the closed runway and end of runway 02. We saw a least one widebody taxi on F7 to the runway and heard another taxi on F7 over the radio. This needs to be clarified to prevent confusion in the future.The Jepp 10-9 page Effective 6 Dec 18 for RPLC depicts a restriction for wide body aircraft that ATC (tower and ground) does not restrict. Jepp should be updated to reflect current ATC guidanceThe Jeppesen chart 10-9 Effective 6 Dec 18 for RPLC; needs to be updated deleting the restriction. Or; tower needs to issue taxi instructions that force a 180 turn on the runway for take off. We must already do one for landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported manual update required due to difference between Jeppesen chart and company pilot procedures.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taking off out of SFO with the Shoreline 2 departure. We were to fly heading 040 off of Runway 28R and climb to 15;000. First Officer flying; at 450 FT I asked if he wanted heading select 040? He said 'no; I'm thinking I missed something.' I checked the departure to confirm routing and confirmed to him that the departure was a turn to 040. This is a very compressed time; as we are now passing about 800 FT and told to switch to Departure Control. Departure asked if we were in a turn; I said yes; was just starting it and Departure said to fly heading 280 up to 10;000. Next instruction after a few seconds was to fly direct Linden when able and climb to 15;000. No mention of any problems from ATC. We were around 1;200 FT I think when we were told to fly heading 280.


Second narrative: After takeoff in heading mode of 283 degrees; aircraft wanted to turn left due to high winds with A/P 2 selected. Pilot Monitoring asked me if this was correct and clicked off A/P at same time Tower switched us to Departure Frequency. Upon checking in with Departure; they said climb to 10 thousand straight out. About 10 seconds later Departure said cleared direct Linden. We complied and continued the take off and checklist. With unfamiliar airport and unfamiliar departure procedures make sure expected routing is what is briefed and if there are questions ask Tower prior to takeoff clearance.


Synopsis: Air Carrier departure from SFO Runway 28R on the 'Shoreline SID' failed to initiate the right turn as published and was instructed to fly runway heading when changed to Departure Control.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the 'before landing' checklist the right gear indicated unsafe on both primary and secondary indicators. We asked the Tower to observe right gear position on our low approach/missed approach and they indicated it appeared down. I asked for a downwind to 36L for another low approach; during which time; we recycled the gear and attempted to troubleshoot our malfunction. The unsafe indicators remained along with the gear warning horn when flaps were extended to 35 degrees. The Tower once again confirmed their previous observation that the gear appeared down. I declared an emergency and requested equipment to standby; contacted Maintenance and Dispatch and completed our QRH checklists; secured the cabin and briefed our plan should the gear fail during initial touchdown and/or rollout. The landing was uneventful and we had Maintenance pin the gear and tow us into our gate.




Synopsis: DC10 Captain went around for an unsafe gear indication on both primary and secondary indicators. Cycling the landing gear produced the same result. An emergency was declared followed by a normal landing.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EVB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: mist; 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D EVB
ATC / advisory: Tower EVB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training cross country flight from EVB [up north and back to] EVB. During planning; forecast ceiling in EVB was to be 700 feet according to available resources and pilot reports. Flight north uneventful; but took a little longer than expected. We departed EVB with 3.5 hours worth of fuel at planned performance. On the return leg; the headwind was stronger than expected; and over Daytona we had approximately 1 hour of total fuel remaining. Reported weather in EVB was 700 feet overcast according to the AWOS. We asked DAB for direct routing due to fuel concerns; but did not declare minimum fuel because the weather was reporting above minimums in EVB. At the FAF we were told to switch to Tower and upon calling them they said that 'the ceiling is 400 feet'. The minimums for the approach are 440; but it was unclear if it was a pilot report; or AWOS reading. Another aircraft had attempted the RNAV 2 previously so I assumed that it was a pilot report from that aircraft to the south. Tower also said that conditions to the south of us were worse; implying that the ceiling on our approach (Runway 7) could be better. We continued the approach with autopilot and at 440 I noted what I believed to be the runway threshold. I also could see the PAPI. This was at 1.5 NM which puts us above the required visibility of 1 NM. So I continued the approach below minimums having the runway threshold and PAPI in sight. As I got to ~400 feet I saw that what I thought was the threshold was actually the road in front of the runway; but at that time I could see the full runway and was below the ceiling. We continued straight in for 7 and landed without incident. A combination of assumptions about weather and fuel caused us to try and force the approach in marginal conditions. That and the reported AWOS ceiling of 700 feet gave us reason to expect success on the approach. Conditions continued to deteriorate after landing and I realized that the ceiling was likely dropping throughout the approach.




Synopsis: The pilot of a light twin engine aircraft reported an approach and landing in deteriorating conditions that may have taken place below approach minimums.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TPA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D SPG; TFR TROPICANA FIELD
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the night of the [date]; a friend (another aircraft) and I went to Saint Petersburg with the impression that there was a TFR over Tropicana Field so we filed IFR on the inbound flight. When we started back to ZZZ; we checked Foreflight for NOTAMS to which we found none applicable to our departure regarding airspace. However; the map showed that there was a TFR over the area with 'seat-geek' written in parentheses next to the FDC NOTAM name. We ultimately decided we should call FSS to clear up the confusion; so they told us that they were not showing a TFR over the area; but that we should call Tampa TRACON to be sure. We called Tampa TRACON and the gentleman who we spoke to said that he didn't know of any TFR over the area; but we were not authorized to fly through a TFR. Due to this conflicting information; we asked if we could depart; and he responded we were not authorized through a TFR and that the controller was saturated. After this; we called Miami flight service in an attempt to clear up the confusion and to see if they were indicating a TFR. Miami called TAMPA TRACON through the landline; and later came back to tell us that he had spoken to the same gentleman at Tampa; and that he was not co-operating with flight service. We called Tampa afterwards in an attempt to get a simple yes/no answer if we were able to depart SPG. Tampa was unable to give us a clear answer and simply belittled us by telling us that pilots should be able to identify a TFR and that we should stop calling him. We finally decided that we would depart SPG and stay clear of all airspace. The flight back to ZZZ was successful and no further issues.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusion over whether or not a TFR was active; and reported ATC was unhelpful.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: HYD -- Y RSVR LO LVL ECAM during climbout.  Accomplished ECAM procedures; QRH and Supplemental Normal  procedures.  Consulted with Dispatch and continued on to destination with no other problems.  Aircraft GW was 16;000 LBS over max landing weight at the time.   Y HYD SYS fluid loss.




Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences a Yellow Hydraulic RSVR LO LVL ECAM during climbout.  After ECAM actions flight continues to destination.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Tower cleared us for the option initially at the downwind leg; and we requested full stop which was granted! The private pilot (PIC of the flight) landed the aircraft safely and he tried to apply [brakes] after he landed with power idle; but the aircraft was not stopping; and I eventually tried to use the brake on my side and finally came up in complete stop 3-5 feet after the runway (in the grass area end of [runway]); both tires [were] still good. However; by maneuvering the aircraft out from the grass area to the side taxiway; the left main tire went flat because it already has a bubble outside. We [parked] the plane and turned off the engine because we couldn't taxi with a flat tire. Airport safety came up and we noticed that the second main tire also ha[d] a bubble. The airport asked me; (the most qualify pilot); to file up an incident report which I did and Maintenance was called to come and changed both main tires; while changing that; they cut the bubble on the second tire to be able to change it as well.To prevent [this] type of event to occur next time; I will make sure the pilot I'm flying with [is well qualified] on the airplane and instead of using a short runway of 3;195 feet for landing [I] will use a longer one. A more stabilize approach on final will also help. The braking system test should be more efficiently conduct prior to the flight as well.




Synopsis: The reporter was a passenger aboard a C-182 which exited the end of the runway on landing because the brakes had failed.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the ZZZZZ 4 Arrival into ZZZ. We had the autopilot on; we were slowed to 220 knots over ZZZZZ per the arrival. We saw a pitch trim annunciator on the PFD. The trim wheel was at the full nose down position. We could not move it any more forward. The aircraft wanted to pitch up when the autopilot was turned off. Approach assigned us 190 knots. Once the aircraft was slowed down; we could move the trim wheel a bit back; then a bit forward. Approach then assigned us 170 knots. Once the aircraft was at 170 knots; then trim seemed to work normally. We ran the jammed elevator trim (in cruise position) QRH. We decided to land with flaps 15. We than ran the flap fail approach QRC; and the flap fail landing QRC. The landing was standard. We did not declare the emergency because we had the aircraft well under control. We checked the runway length and ZZZ had enough runway. I'm still not sure why we had a full forward trim at 220 KIAS.




Synopsis: Citation Captain reported having a pitch trim problem while landing.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-400 and 400 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X entered the sector; the R Controller solicited the estimate; requested altitude; and requested mach speed for our sectors exit fix.  I took the information and coordinated it; JOBOC XA55 FL330 mach 0.80.  After coordination was complete the aircraft encountered moderate turbulence at FL330.  Then the pilot requested FL350; during the time I was offline passing the turbulence information to the next sector; and asking if they have any adverse ride reports.  During this time the R Controller climbed the aircraft to FL350.  I did not catch this; and did not re-coordinate the revised altitude to the next sector.  When the aircraft was terminated I failed to check the altitude of the data block.  The aircraft then checked in with the next sector (non-radar) at FL350 not at the coordinated altitude of FL330.  No loss of separation occurred.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller reports of not catching an altitude change because they were off line coordinating.  Aircraft climbed to higher altitude then what was coordinated.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departure we noticed that our right engine (Engine Number 2) was significantly less than what we departed with. We determined that we were losing oil at rate that we would not be able to continue to ZZZ1. We informed ATC (Air Traffic Control) of our intentions to return to ZZZ. As pilot flying it was now 'My aircraft; my radios' as the Captain went to work contacting everyone he needed to. We landed back at ZZZ on Runway XX below max landing weight. ARFF did a quick inspection of our engine. We shut the right engine down taxied to the gate. AML entry was made and maintenance confirmed we lost a significant amount of oil.  At some point during the climb some mechanical part of the engine must have failed to where we were leaking oil.




Synopsis: A319 flight crew encountered engine oil leak and returned to departure airport landed uneventfully.