elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Vectoring around weather in a 2nd generation B737. We got high and lowered the gear and went to flaps 15 to get down.  As we leveled off; the thrust was at idle. Airspeed was deteriorating rapidly. I called out airspeed; but the Captain didn't hear me (no intercom and noisy cockpit). Just then; we captured the Localizer. Aircraft banked 30 degrees to capture localizer and quickly pitched up approximately 15-20 degrees to maintain altitude. We both grabbed the yoke; disconnected autopilot; applied power; and recovered. It was surprising how quickly the aircraft pitched up. We don't fly B737 this version much. Situational awareness is degraded in the older generation B737s. The more comfortable we get with glass; the less comfortable we are with analog. How we communicate in the cockpit is different (that was big here); no autothrottles; and degraded SA.  I don't have the same comfort level in the older generation B737s as I do in the [glass cockpit B737's].




Synopsis: B737-300 First Officer reports getting very slow after using gear and flaps to get down; when the aircraft banks hard to capture the localizer and pitches up to capture altitude with the engines at idle and no autothrust.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After departing DTW when selecting PALACE 8 Departure; the 280 kt speed limit does not show up unless you finger swipe the chart smaller showing the 280 kt speed limit above 10;000 ft in the upper right hand corner. Departure Control cleared us normal speed; but I have also seen this error in LAX FIXIT 2 departure. Sometimes when clicking on the SID chart; the speed limit above 10;000 is not visible unless you shrink the screen and bringing out the speed info from the top right corner.All 3 of us to re-examined the SID and figured out the 280 kt speed limit was hidden on all of our IPads until you shrink the SID; exposing the 280 speed limit in the top right corner of the plate. Seems like many airport now have speed limits above 10;000 ft like ORD.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: During climb out from DTW; Cleveland Center cleared the aircraft to resume normal speed; but the crew did not know about the 280 kt restriction above 10;000 ft until they changed their iPad screen size. Similar issues are seen on iPad ORD and LAX SID speed constraint placements.
Date: 202103
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
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: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach at night extremely bright lights; said to be golf driving range over water (by local ATC) is to the north and west of the airport. Too bright for a normal approach.  This is causing a hazard to the arriving aircraft. During landing flare the lights were not a distraction.  On approach into RNO [Airport]; extremely bright lights presented a hazard.Maybe change the intensity of the lights; or no lights during north flow approach.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported bright lights beyond the airport at a golf range; are too bright and distracting while landing to the North at RNO airport.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While flying the arrival into DFW; we were instructed to descend via the KLNDR1 arrival. As we made the turn by KLNDR; we noticed we were above the altitude published on the chart by about 800 feet. ATC did not query our altitude; and no evasive action was necessary. TCAS was operational and did not trigger any alerts. Leading to this error; we had a number of slight distractions between company reports and talking to the flight attendant. Additionally; these new arrivals impose a very high workload to comply with the numerous altitude and speed restrictions. Many of these altitude restrictions occur during a time period when workload is generally high in the terminal environment and distract us from safely looking out for traffic and dealing with other operational issues at the same time as we are spending most of our attention to making all the altitude and speed restrictions. A small distraction can easily keep us off track with these more complicated descent profiles especially when the aircraft is not equipped with a vertical navigation feature of the autopilot and no autothrottles.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer reports missing the KLNDR crossing restriction during the KLNDR1 arrival to DFW and describes how difficult it is to comply with an RNAV STAR in an aircraft without VNAV or autothrottle capability.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After an uneventful flight I attempted a landing in a spot that looked clear. The wind had increased to approximately 8 kts. I cleared a tree and pulled out to rapidly descend into what appeared to be [a] safe [area]. The wind sailed and dragged me over 50 yards into power lines that I hadn't seen. When power had been disconnected we removed the envelope from the lines. The only damage was two small holes melted in the fabric. No one was injured.




Synopsis: Balloon pilot reported encountering power lines during landing when the wind unexpectedly picked up.
Date: 201504
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Departure / Pushback
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Tug movement
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushing flight; we were headed back to the gate when fuel truck came through the gate area at a high rate of speed; and the push tractor had to brake hard to not hit him.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Tug Operator reported he had to brake hard to avoid a collision with a fuel truck which was driving through the gate area at a high rate of speed.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A RJJJ
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Arrival into Narita with strong; gusty winds slowed the arrival flow. Multiple aircraft required to hold. We were given two holds inbound (the first at KETAR and next at VEPOX). While en route to VEPOX Tokyo gave us an Expect Further Clearance (EFC) [approximately 75 minutes in the future]. Tokyo was advised by us we could not accept such a lengthy delay. They would not adjust our EFC unless an emergency [existed]. After [advising ATC] we were given expedited vectors to Narita. During the ILS approach to 16R an aural/visual wind shear warning occurred. A go around was executed and we diverted to Yokota due to our fuel state.




Synopsis: A B777 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after a missed approach was executed.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were ferrying an A321 to ZZZ with 4 empty cabin portable oxygen bottles in the cargo compartment. I called Dispatch and Maintenance Control and inquired if we needed a maintenance waiver to carry them. They informed me that since they were empty it was not needed.


Second narrative: The day after a medical emergency caused us to land at ZZZ1; we ferried a flight back to ZZZ. We were unaware that any HAZMAT was located in the cargo and no documents were provided.[Company] does not service this airport; so we had no ground support to notify or provide us paperwork of the situation. It's hard to pinpoint a solution in this extraordinary event; since there was little to no service at this airport.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch regarding transport of Hazmat material on ferry flight.
Date: 201402
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft weight after receipt of final weights was 838;000 LBS. Max gross weight 875;000 LBS. MAC 17%; Trim 7.8. During taxi-out; a 'STAB GREENBAND' EICAS and 'STAB GREENBAND' status message appeared. This is an indication to us that there is a weight and balance issue. We performed the procedure in our manual; which did not satisfactorily resolve the issue. We contacted Maintenance Control who recommended we return to the gate.Maintenance and Load Planning were advised of the situation. After about 30 minutes at the gate; we had not been contacted by Maintenance or Load Planning; however a new MRD appeared on our printer; deferring the nose gear pressure switch as inoperative. No physical inspection of the cargo compartment was performed; only a review of the load plan and the paperwork involved. We immediately called to have a mechanic come to talk with us. In addition; we called operations and asked that a physical check of the actual cargo loading be performed. The 2 men who loaded the aircraft; along with a Supervisor came to the cockpit and advised us that the containers were loaded correctly according to their paperwork. In the meantime; a Mechanic came on board; looked at our trim indicator and the green band; and determined the nose gear pressure switch was indeed working.  He also performed a maintenance test through the CDU on that switch and confirmed the proper operation of the switch.We asked Load Planning to figure a way to re-weigh and/or move cargo containers to get the aircraft into proper weight and balance. They insisted their numbers were correct and refused to do anything further. This EICAS message was there for a reason. This aircraft was potentially not in a safe configuration to fly. I officially refused the aircraft. In speaking with flight managers they agreed with our decision. There is no way to determine what the outcome of a takeoff attempt would have been; whether it would have been uneventful; resulted in a tail strike; or worse. The fact that Load Planning was unwilling to work with us not only caused this flight and several down the line to cancel but could have seriously jeopardized the safety of the flight.




Synopsis: B747 Captain reported refusing to fly an aircraft when he received a 'STAB GREENBAND' EICAS alert on taxi out and Load Planning refused to change the load.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to heading 090 and descend we complied and proceeded to that heading and the given altitude. After several minutes we were ask[ed] if we had traffic at our 1 o'clock to our 2 o'clock position. As the non-flying pilot and the first officer I located an aircraft at our 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock position and advised we had the traffic in sight. We were cleared to follow the RJ for the visual. We were roughly 4-5 miles from that aircraft. We responded by saying we are cleared to follow visual number 2 when in fact we were number 3 and still was not told of the 2nd aircraft. We spaced ourselves appropriately for a visual to follow the aircraft we assumed to be our traffic. Since no other comment had been made about 2 aircraft. We were advised that our traffic had slowed to 180 which we had already done. Still not knowing about the aircraft or looking for him. ATC then asked if we had traffic at our 12 o'clock position at which time we spotted the 'crj' and turned to heading 120 to extend our downwind squaring off our turn to final and following in for approach. During that verbal exchange I clarified that now we are cleared number 3. We never received an RA during the entire approach. The ops manager that we spoke too insinuated that it would be hard to mistake an RJ from a 737. And when talking about a CRJ or Embraer 145 he would be correct; but an Embraer 175 looks very similar especially from 5 miles away. That is also an 'RJ' that [carrier] flies. We were told to follow the RJ at our 2 o'clock position from the information we were provided we thought we were doing just that. We did not realize there was a second aircraft behind the one we had visual contact with at our 1 to 2 o'clock. If we would have been told that there was yet another aircraft we would have known to follow the second aircraft. This was just a miscommunication.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported confusion as to which aircraft they were instructed to follow to the airport. ATC contributed to the ambiguity.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA; Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After taking off Runway 25R; the aircraft was tracking LNAV on course. The aircraft turned to the south on course and ATC assigned us a climb unrestricted to 19000 feet. Aircraft went into HDG mode unnoticed. ATC asked us shortly after if we turned early to go direct to BOACH. We realized the aircraft was in HDG mode. ATC said we were the fourth aircraft that night that did the same thing.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737NG Pilot reported the aircraft navigated off course on its own.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This fatigue event was a result of scheduling a reserve pilot for an evening coverage and then resetting him to an early morning event. All of my times are in local East Coast base time. I was scheduled for XA:00 short call. After I received my assignment [the day before]; I looked at the weather forecast for the day of my short call and realized there is significant winter storm that is going to hit the mid-west. Knowing that delays in [mid-west] can affect all our operations here; I slept in longer that I normally do; and I also decided to take early afternoon nap to ensure I am ready to potentially fly an all nighter as I didn't start my short call till XA:00 and was covering the evening push. Little after XA:00; I received a call from the scheduler notifying me that I was being released from my short call to a XM:15 field standby [the following day] at our cross town airport; BWI. I explained to the scheduler that I shifted my sleep cycle and it will be extremely difficult for me to get any rest to be ready for the field standby; especially since in order to arrive at BWI I will have to get up before XK:00. After speaking with the Duty Manager; I decided to wait till the morning to see if I was able to get quality rest. Unfortunately; I was not able to fall asleep early enough to get any significant rest. I probably got about 1.5 to 2 hours of sleep and not quality rest. When I woke up for my assignment; I felt extremely tired and not fit for duty so I called the scheduler to call in fatigue. In addition; when I checked my schedule after I woke up; the scheduler already put a trip on my schedule for XM:30 departure from BWI to [the West Coast] with a deadhead afterwards. I was not in adequately rested condition to fly a 6 hour leg therefore the safer option was a fatigue call.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported fatigue event due to conflicting work-duty rest periods.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Downwind vectoring off BRAUN Arrival for 13R. 2500 foot GPWS callout made on downwind; no approach clearance issued yet.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain reported GPWS callout made while on downwind vector.