elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ1
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 5;500 pounds of fuel became trapped due to #1 float switch issue. They [requested priority handling] and landed in ZZZ.    While trying to communicate with the aircraft the ACARS send function in FPS failed.  I tried the backup in the services link and that also failed.  I had to have a fellow dispatcher send the ACARS for me since time was of the essence. It was a brief outage but at a very critical moment. Advised [supervisor] and contacted ZZZ Tower.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported failure of the automated ACARS function on their work station complicated an event with an aircraft having fuel trapped in a wing tank due to component malfunction.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After my runup at Runway XXR; I proceeded to hold short of Runway XXR at Taxiway 1. I announced on CTAF 'Grumman Tiger is taking Runway XXR for left downwind departure'. Having heard no response; I entered on the runway and started my roll. I was airborne before passing Taxiway 2. About 30 seconds later I heard 'Cessna [...] clear of Runway XXR at taxiway 3'. I assumed someone was crossing the runway and just forgot to announce entering it.I landed about 40 minutes later. After stopping by my tiedown; I was approached by the airport ops gentleman who advised me that during my take off there was another airplane still on the opposite end of Runway XXR.According to the airport ops gentleman (he stated he had already spoken with the other pilot); this plane had landed Runway XXR just before I started my runup and had been sitting on the runway for 4 minutes before finally exiting at the opposite end (Taxiway 3). He also mentioned this plane had some communication problems talking to another plane while still airborne prior to his landing.I didn't hear any radio announcement and I didn't see any traffic on my ADS-B In screen.I don't believe I would be able to discern a small tail light of that plane given the distance (8;000 ft runway) and the airport lighting (ZZZ has lots of lights now; new taxiway lights; under construction lights; etc.). At no point there was any danger of collision since I never even saw this airplane but I will have to be more vigilant and take into account that technical difficulties may prevent other pilots from hearing me or responding to me.




Synopsis: Private pilot reported ground conflict during takeoff.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying from ZZZZ to ZZZ; we experienced a loss of pressurization about one and a half hours into the flight. We first heard a loud squeal by the main cabin door and then saw that the cabin altitude was beginning to rise uncontrollably. We [requested priority handling] and started an emergency descent to 15;000 ft. We followed the emergency descent and loss of pressurization checklist in the QRH. We calculated our range and contacted company; and formulated the plan to divert to ZZZ1. We landed in ZZZ1 about 2 hours later without any other events.




Synopsis: GIV-SP Captain reported a loss of cabin pressurization during cruise and diverted uneventfully.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAI.Tower, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FAI
ATC / advisory: Tower FAI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working TCIC [Tower Controller in Charge]. Aircraft X was on a GPS/RNAV Runway 20L approach. On short final; the Local Controller (LC) had to send Aircraft X around for a previous arrival that was still on the runway executing a touch-and-go. Aircraft X was instructed to go around and offset to the left. Aircraft X was subsequently instructed to turn left crosswind for left traffic to Runway 20L at approximately 010 MSL. The pilot complied and was cleared to land on Runway 20L. Shortly later I realized Aircraft X had been IFR on an IFR approach and did not request to cancel IFR or remain in the pattern for a Visual Approach. He was not given the option for an IFR missed approach and therefore issued a turn below the MVA of 029 MSL. We handle many aircraft that fly both VFR and IFR depending on the day. The LC and I should have been more vigilant when issuing him go-around instructions.




Synopsis: Tower Controller In Charge reported not realizing an aircraft was on a IFR clearance and observed the Local Controller use improper procedures resulting in the aircraft being below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxied clear of 34R and started to taxi on Taxiway 'F.' First Officer contacted Ground Control who cleared us 'F; Z; G; BS.' First Officer read back clearance. I then said the clearance out loud as well. We identified 'Z' and turn left but just continued on 'Z' instead of making the immediately right onto 'G.' As we continued to taxi on 'Z;' we noticed and the Controller noticed that we didn't make the turn onto 'G.' The Controller spoke up first and said 'Air Carrier 123; I meant for you to taxi the other way. Contact ground on 127.85.' We contacted Ground and we were cleared Z; L; BS. Personally I lost my situation awareness. When I heard the clearance; I pictured the second route in my head even though I said the correct route back to the First Officer but saw the second route in my head and made the second route happen. I had my 10-9 out but couldn't refer to it immediately because I was taxiing; besides I'd been to this airport hundreds of times; right? I knew DEN was gearing up for snow and I figured they were sending us east so that we wouldn't conflict with westbound traffic. I even mentioned that that was a strange clearance. The First Officer must have thought the same thing because he never said anything as it happened. This is a good wake-up call yet again; that even under the most simple of circumstances; you really have to remain diligent and stick to the things we have implemented at our air carrier. Conservative taxi; confirm routes; use your 10-9; take nothing for granted; write down clearances; speak up when/if you think something is not right; stay in the game all the way to master switch off.




Synopsis: A CRJ200 Captain reported loosing situational awareness after starting his taxi at DEN and taking an incorrect taxiway even though he had been there and followed the route hundreds of times previously.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: B737NG QRH Errors. Threat: aircrew will use incorrect QRH procedures resulting in possible loss of airframe. Background: while looking up QRH unreliable airspeed power and pitch settings; I noted the performance table for the 737-700 CFM56 holding flaps up unreliable airspeed (table x.x) was incorrect as the lighter gross weights had higher airspeeds and N1s than the heavier gross weights. I submitted a [report] Flight Ops publication feedback form on it. The response was quick; but noted the correction had been put out via bulletin on (date from seven months ago) that the table was incorrect and it had also noted the speedbrake 'Do Not Arm' procedure was in error. I remembered reading the bulletin; but honestly thought it was letting me know the QRH was going to be updated. It has now been six plus months; and the QRH still contains inaccurate information. I have spoken to a half dozen pilots; including a Chief Pilot and a separate Check Airman; none knew the QRH was still incorrect nor recalled the bulletin. Recommend that if the QRH cannot be updated due to processes; finding a different way to remind aircrew the QRH is in error. A note to review the bulletin (or even the correct table and procedures) could be added to the front page of the weather packets or dispatcher note regarding the bulletin could be added to all releases.




Synopsis: Air carrier reporter stated there are QRH errors in the performance table accompanying the B737NG Unreliable Airspeed Non-Normal procedure.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On departure; Departure control issued a climb via SID except maintain FL210. There was a fix on the departure that had a at or below 9000 restriction. Both the First Officer and I were under the impression that this clearance canceled the altitudes on the SID and gave us a new assigned altitude of FL210. Prior to the fix with the at or below 9000 restriction; the Controller assigned us a right turn and new heading with a request to expedite our climb through 12000. After the First Officer read back the instructions; the Controller advised us to be careful next time with at or below 9000 restriction on that departure. We told him that we must have misunderstood the clearance and he said not to worry about it; but that we would still have to comply with the restriction even after given an 'except maintain' clearance.Being a new Captain; the RNAV departure procedures and the expect maintain clearances are new to me. I thought this clearance meant to comply with the speeds and fixes but that all altitudes were waved with the new clearance limit. My First Officer apparently was under the same impression. I called and talked to my Chief Pilot to verify the details and meaning of this type of clearance. He was able to explain what the clearance meant and where we were wrong. Knowledge and a complete understanding of this phraseology is imperative to avoiding this type of event. I was misinformed on this one; but I know now what it means and feel 100% confident that this type of error will not happen to me again thanks to the instruction from my Chief Pilot.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain explained his confusion after overshooting a CLIMB VIA departure SID altitude constraint which he thought had been deleted with clearance to a higher altitude.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Other
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We landed in ZZZ with a Code 2 braking report. DOT had done a superb job of plowing and sanding the runway resulting in an actual braking action of at least Medium. It continued to snow during our approximate 30 minute turn while DOT continued to plow the runway. DOT stopped plowing when we commenced deicing. After our deicing and engine starts we commenced taxiing. Upon turning onto the runway the jet slid sideways across the runway. After correcting the slide I made a second turn onto the center line; experiencing a second slide. I determined Braking Action to be Nil. I set the parking brake and called DOT informing them we needed a complete plow and sanding of the runway. This took approximately 20 minutes. After DOT completed their work and issued a Braking Action report; we departed safely without incident.Crews should remain vigilant and remember Braking action changes rapidly with heavy snow.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports runway braking action is nil prior to takeoff.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Last day of a four day trip. Flight was canceled from previous day due to flight crew timing out. Time out had come from return to gate; aircraft swap from 'Feel Diff PSI' light in ZZZ and weather delay/holding on arrival at ZZZ1. Flight had 16 souls on board. On taxi out Dispatch contacted twice. First for takeoff data due to [system] calculation errors; then for 26;000+ lower than planned zero fuel weight. Normal preflight taxi and takeoff. Passing 10;000 ft. cabin alt light and horn came on. Pilot Flying leveled off at 11;000 ft. and we requested descent to 10;000 ft. for pressurization issue. Both engine bleed air valves discovered closed. Opened Engine bleed air valves and restored cabin pressurization. Once pressurization stable proceeded on climb out and concluded flight segment with no other abnormalities. Completed a thorough crew debrief identifying failure of pilot flying to note bleed air valve position on panel preflight; Pilot Monitoring failure to note bleed air valve position on before takeoff check list and after takeoff checklist.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that numerous distractions prior to departure resulted in takeoff with bleed air valves incorrectly configured.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying the RUUDY 4 departure; upon reaching TASCA the pilot flying reached approximately 2;560 FT before ATC instructed the aircraft to descend back down to 2;000 FT. At the time of the incident I was acting as the pilot not flying and was simultaneously talking to ATC and programming the GPS. The correct altitude of 2;000 FT was properly entered into the altitude selector and the flight director was operational and indicating accurately. The departure procedure along with specific altitudes were discussed thoroughly prior to departure and all company procedures and call outs were made in accordance with the company's general operations manual. I believe this event to be the direct result of both pilot negligence and the Captain's poor Crew Resource Management [CRM] skills. I feel additional training with emphasis on CRM could prevent this from happening again.




Synopsis: A Citation First Officer reported his Captain failed to cross TASCA at 2;000 FT as required by the RUUDY SID from TEB.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff from runway 15L.  Less than 2 minutes later Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff from runway 15L.  Under the new wake Re-Categorization (RECAT) rules I need 4 miles radar separation and I didn't have it.  I also believe under the new wake RECAT rules I may have needed 2 minutes between the two departures. This report may be shared.I need to continue reviewing the new wake RECAT rules to prevent the re-occurrence of this event.  I also feel a large factor to why this error happened was the lack of training we received on the new wake RECAT.  We had no simulator time; and the instructor rushed through and skipped a lot of the informational slides.




Synopsis: An IAH Controller departs an aircraft and then less than 2 minutes later departs another aircraft. The Controller didn't have the required separation between the two aircraft due to the lack of knowledge of the re-classification of wake turbulence rules.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other All phases
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to extended wearing of face mask coverings; with no exceptions per policies and procedures; severe headaches and an increased in allergic reactions are common after every duty day since these mandates were issued. Once mask is removed; after a few minutes; the side effects subside and start improving the more oxygen I'm able to receive. This has applied to many flights and not limited to this one. Other crews have voiced similar concerns.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported experiencing headaches and allergic reactions after wearing a face mask during flight. The effects reportedly subside once the face mask is removed.