elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On my recent rotation; I was coerced into a 14 hour crew day by [Crew Scheduling] et al.The departure time was XC:24 from ZZZ; which should have resulted in a XA:54 show time and a 10 hour crew day; according to the Operations Manual. Instead; I received an email informing me that if I did not agree to a one-hour reduced show time; [Crew Scheduling] would unilaterally change the departure time to XC:00; thereby forcing a 14 hour crew day by virtue of a 6 minute change in show time. I have heard from others that their show or departure times were similarly adjusted up to 30 minutes using this same underhanded tactic. Thus; this is a commonly used way to extend crew day for company convenience. Clearly; the resulting level of fatigue does not matter.The original illegal day's schedule was posted several days in advance. I naively assumed that it was an oversight and would be corrected. Instead; I learned about how much The Company is really concerned about crew fatigue. My responses to [Crew Scheduling] and the Chief Pilot were ignored; and the show time was moved without comment. I flew the last leg under protest.What is the point of publishing Flight Operations Manual reduced duty hours for early show times if [the company] can arbitrarily change them for its own convenience; without regard for the resulting fatigue effects? Why does [the company] make us sit through hours of [training] about fatigue; risk management; and safety when the company clearly has so little regard for any of those issues?What about the impact on the client? Instead of following the rules; [Crew Scheduling] set itself up for a crisis had I justifiably called fatigued after the end of the ten hour legal crew day.If management is not going to respect the fatigue effects of early departures; I suggest that the appropriate portions of the FOM (Flight Operations Manual) be removed so that pilots clearly understand The Company's true fatigue policy. For now; I will consider myself warned that [the company] does not actually care about fatigue issues and the associated safety issues; and will proceed accordingly.[Crew Scheduling] should prohibit changing of show or departure times to extend crew day. Once a trip is booked for XC:29 or earlier; the crew is limited to a ten hour day; and the company should not change it.




Synopsis: CE750 pilot reported that their company does not follow policies to prevent excessive fatigue on long duty days.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Angle of Attack Vane
Component problem: Failed
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: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through 35;000 FT; we received a stall fail caution message. We complied with the QRH and turned off the left PTCT switch. Approximately 1 minute later; we got continuous ignition; the warbler sounded and the stick shaker activated. The low speed and high speed cues showed on the left airspeed tape while indicating 280 KTS. We declared an emergency and returned.




Synopsis: CL600 Captain experienced a stall fail caution message climbing through FL350. In compliance with QRH procedures the left PTCT switch is turned off. One minute later continuous ignition came on; the warbler sounded and the stick shaker activated. Flight returned uneventfully to departure airport after declaring an emergency.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: For the last few months; I have noticed that many of our Ground Crews; once the brakes are set; are disconnecting the headset prior to me releasing them. I try to catch them before and advise them that we need to stay in communication until I release them or the roll back of the number one engine. After the brakes are set it is usually the number two side Wing Walker who will walk up and disconnect the headset and close the communications door and then walk away; holding up the pin and the bag. If there were a problem; at this point the only access we have would be hand signals. Is there any way that a Ground Operations memo could go out to Ramp Personnel reminding them that it is the Captain who advises them of when to disconnect the headset and clears them off?Preventative Measures: Reminders to our Ramp Personnel of the proper procedures for safety.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported that ground crews; once the brakes are set; are disconnecting the headset prior to the pilots releasing them.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] just passing SHRRK to JESEN level at 5;100 as assigned by NCT. We had visual with the peaks approaching below us and received a GPWS PULL UP warning. The pilot flying disengaged the autopilot; pulled up and warning ceased before the pilot had to push up thrust levers. We descend back down to 5;100 and advised ATC what happened. ATC asked us to confirm level at 5;100. We said yes; and altimeter set to 29.95. ATC said 5;100 FT was the MVA for that area/route. This was the JAWWS 3 ARR into SJC. The segment altitude is 6;100 FT. I told the Controller I would call and file a report. The Controller said NCT [would be] doing [the] same.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier received an EGPWS warning on the SJC JAWWS 3 Arrival after NCT cleared them to 5;100 FT between SHRRK and JESEN intersections where the segment altitude is 6;100 FT.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We began the ILS 25L into LAX from SEAVU and were established in LNAV and VNAV Path. The PF selected approach mode on an intercept heading. Upon selection; the aircraft immediately captured LOC mode in the FMA and instituted a right turn almost 45 degrees across the localizer when it should have turned left to join. The autopilot was disconnected while I double checked the frequency and course of the ILS. We were queried by ATC and told to rejoin on a heading which we complied with. The autopilot was reengaged on the intercept heading from the north and proceeded to capture the LOC FMA and turn right (north) away from the course. The autopilot was disconnected again and we reassessed everything a second time. ATC offered 24R if it would help but we declined as we were still troubleshooting. The guidance provided by the flight director in the approach mode was not even close to what was required to rejoin. The PF elected to hand fly it from the final approach fix where Flight Director Approach guidance was telling him he was correct but we were lined up on a taxiway south of 25R. He corrected promptly and we landed without exceeding our stabilized approach criteria. The aircraft malfunction was written up on arrival to the gate. The malfunction by the autoflight caused us to be north of course by an undetermined amount. This report is just in case any loss of separation occurred inadvertently.


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


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported difficulties with the autoflight function to keep on the LAX Runway 25L ILS centerline.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Artificial fragrances being pumped out of the vents at the airport are toxic; contain phthalates; can cause respiratory irritations and are known to cause cancer as well as many other issues.  Everyone in the airport has to wear a face covering; and it comes with a challenge to breathe out of a face covering while wearing it all day; every day.  What is the use of a false fragrance?  It's irritating to employees and can cause headaches as well.  We are currently being exposed to cleaning chemicals ...we do not need any additional irritants in the air for cosmetic purposes.




Synopsis: Customer Service Representative reported that the airport is pumping artificial fragrances that are irritating and can cause headaches.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After holding over ZZZZZ for two turns we were taken in to the ILS XR. When on final approach ATC had us slow from 210 to 180 to 160 to 150 to final approach speed. I extended the gear and put flaps 22 out. At this time since we were level at 2000 moderate to severe icing had accumulated on all non-protected surfaces. It was so bad that ice had formed all over both side pilot windows. ATC tried to slow us even more and I told them unable and they made us go around with a ton of ice accretion on the airplane. They then told us we'd be number 8 or 9 to return so we diverted to ZZZ1. I declared minimum fuel because we couldn't take any delayed vectors as we were low from holding. We landed in ZZZ1.




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported being unable to meet the given speed restrictions on approach. Aircraft encountered icing conditions; went around and diverted to another airport.
Date: 201910
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Rain; 2.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: ATIS information Bravo current with visibility at 2.5 miles and ceiling broken at 600 ft; wet runway with rain. We were cleared 'line up and wait Runway 4R' following a departing aircraft with landing traffic on final. As soon as we stopped in position; Tower instructed us to exit the runway at Taxiway Victor for landing traffic de-confliction. Taxiway Victor; while marked on the airport diagram; is not marked on the airfield when approached from the Runway 4R Approach end. There is no sign. This caused confusion so we taxied past Victor to the Y2 Taxiway and exited the Runway. Due to rain; we could not see the Taxiway Y2 sign until we were past the unmarked Taxiway Victor. Taxi speed was appropriate for wet field conditions. ATC directed landing traffic to go-around. We were clear of the runway prior to the landing aircraft crossing the field boundary. We were subsequently cleared for takeoff.




Synopsis: B737 NG flight crew reported that poor visibility and lack of signage caused a taxiway incursion.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 3 hours into the flight; when performing pre-descent bathroom break; the flight attendants informed us of fuel/fumes smell mid-cabin over the wings near the exit row. The smell was not noticeable on the flight deck or at other locations in the cabin; and no passengers were expressing any concerns or discomfort. First Officer stepped back to verify and reported it as a petroleum type smell. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance via radio. There wasn't any noticeable fuel loss or fuel burn.  As a precaution we placed the Pack into High Flow; [advised ATC]; and proceeded to ZZZ (closest suitable airfield). We reviewed the smoke/fumes checklist as a precaution in case the fumes became perceptible on the flight deck (it never did). Pilot Flying donned the O2 as a precaution only. Flight attendants were instructed to review cabin prep/evac procedures but not the prep the cabin. Passengers were not informed of anything unusual/abnormal.We executed a day VMC landing at ZZZ with approach control ATC guidance. We cleared the runway and proceeded to the gate with [Crash Fire Rescue] following.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a fumes event during cruise that resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After driving 6 hours and being fatigued from flying 32 legs the previous week; I deviated from my assigned altitude. The controller pointed out the oncoming traffic; which I even altered course 15 degrees to avoid the oncoming aircraft. I suddenly discovered that I exceeded my assigned altitude of 12000 feet by at least 500 feet. I rapidly made a descent back down to 12000 feet. Visual contact with the oncoming aircraft was never lost until passing and my main goal was to maintain visual separation with that traffic.I would be remiss if I didn't say that fatigue and emotional factors contributed greatly to this pilot deviation. My company is short on pilots and long on work. I was covering this run for the time being until we hire a pilot to fly it permanently. Just another example that even if you are getting legal crew rest doesn't mean it's safe.




Synopsis: Pilot drifted above cleared altitude conflicting with opposite direction traffic.  The pilot reporter corrected the error after Controller advised him of the situation. Pilot commented fatigue was a contributing factor.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; Icing; 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Other ATC Specialist
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ZZZ had a contaminated runway with compacted snow. DAAP (Destination Airport Analysis Program) procedure applied to allow 80% runway usage. Weather at ZZZ deteriorated to mountains minimums (1 mile visibility). While conducting approach flaps 5 degrees were selected. At this point the flaps did not deploy and we received a flap fail indication while descending past the IAF on the approach. The checklist was ran which called for reset and another flap selection attempt which also failed. At this time we conducted a missed approach and diverted to ZZZ1 for a longer uncontaminated runway and better weather. Once over ZZZ1 we decided to try slats only which did work assisting in a slightly slower rev speed. A visual approach backed by ILS RWY XX was performed where we stopped using only 60% of runway. After speaking with Maintenance we were told to try resetting the flap circuit breaker and try flaps again. Again we only had slat extension with a flap failure.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported a flap failure on approach to an airport with a contaminated runway caused them to divert to another airport with more favorable runway conditions.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right hand spoiler 2; 3; and 4 failed to retract during approach; with no associated ECAM memo. Noticeable aircraft yawing; the Beta Target 'still green' was 1-1/2 units out to the right. The yawing became noticeable passing 300 feet. Identified on the lower ECAM the RH side spoiler panels 2; 3; 4 were extended. This was accompanied by a continuous noise from aircraft right. Captain was PF; autopilot was off; and rudder trim is normal '0.2R'. A normal landing was made and upon touchdown ground spoilers deployed on schedule. After landing all spoilers retracted normally. I followed up with Captain; and asked the question about a low altitude go around with a single side spoilers deployed in regards to Airbus flight characteristics; if the spoilers did not retract with spoiler deactivation.

Callback: The reporter could not add any information except to state that the company is looking into it. The subject of disarming the spoilers was briefly considered during approach and rejected since the aircraft was stable and the possible negative consequences were unknown.



Synopsis: A320 First Officer reports noticing right hand roll spoilers 2; 3; and 4 are extended during approach with noticeable aircraft yawing and a continuous noise. There were no ECAM messages and the Beta target was well displaced out to the right but remained green. Captain elects to continue the approach to landing where all spoilers extend normally on touch down and retract normally when disarmed.