elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on Runway XX and commenced a normal takeoff roll. Around 100 knots we heard clearly ATC clearing another aircraft to cross Runway XX. Needless to say this was a major distraction during this phase of flight. I suggested we should abort and asked the Captain if he saw the aircraft downfield; which was holding short of Runway XX; moving. The aircraft was not and the Captain announced on the radio; [Our callsign] is rolling on Runway XX. The takeoff continued without further incident. Upon being switched to departure; Tower advised us the aircraft being cleared to cross Runway XX was behind us.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew at 100 knots on the takeoff roll; heard ATC clear another aircraft to cross the same runway. Crew elected to continue the takeoff and Tower subsequently advised that the crossing traffic was behind the takeoff aircraft.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We apparently flew 3 flights with this aircraft where both the pilots and Dispatch were unaware that the aircraft's CAT 3 status had expired. Aircraft was taken out of storage for this trip. Releases for all three segments were signed before the first flight; and there was no indication in the log history or the first maintenance release that CAT 3 had expired. On touchdown at ZZZ; the maintenance system 'auto-generated' a fault record; and then automatically issued a deferral. We were unaware that this had been entered into the electronic logbook; and must have missed it in the review of the maintenance release for the next (ZZZ-ZZZ1) segment. Dispatch discovered this after we pushed on the last segment (ZZZ1-ZZZ2); but was not able to contact us via ACARS; until after we were airborne.  I called dispatcher after landing ZZZ2 to try to figure out what happened; and he looped Maintenance Control in for additional information. Weather was severe clear at all stations; and I am high minimums anyway; so safety was not compromised by not having CAT 3. The phase of flight/occurrence information above was where we were first informed of the issue by Dispatch.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported flying three flights in an aircraft with an expired CAT III status.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Initial clearance [into SFO] was for the Golden Gate 6 arrival; initial fix RBG. Before crossing RBG; we were issued a new arrival; the BDEGA 1; landing West. We were expecting the 28R transition and briefed as such. The intersection CORKK separates the arrival for the left and right runways. Just before CORKK; ATC issued us to the 28L transition. I; as the Pilot Monitoring (PM); was very task saturated and started setting us up for the 28L ILS; reviewing charts and loading the approach into the GPS. As we sequenced over CORKK the A/P turned for the 28R fix; not 28L as assigned. Not long after the sequence; approach gave us a vector of 140 to sequence us behind traffic from the south. After the navigation correction; and set up for 28L; in the (downwind) vector; we were told to expect 28R again. Once again; we had to change the flight plan in the GPS; look at approach plates and re-brief whilst looking for traffic to follow and receiving further vectors and descents. We eventually landed 28R and taxied in without further incidence. I would say close to 100% of our flight plan arrivals change whilst enroute to RNAV STARS when we are able to fly them (NAV database current). So; briefing the filed arrival on the ground before departure is almost counterproductive as we are almost always issued a new one. We always try to brief early before transition altitude and we did. In this case I failed to sequence the GPS to the arrival runway when they changed the runway on us last minute. I was heads down; task saturated; loading the different ILS approach and reviewing approach plates. It wasn't long after the sequence that the controller corrected our navigation deviation and gave us a heading. I don't think ATC ever intended us to land on 28L but just gave us that transition just for flow and get us south. It would have been nice just to get a vector so we could have kept our approaches loaded and pilot tasks less saturated; rather than changing the flight plan and approaches twice in congested airspace.




Synopsis: EMB-505 First Officer reported a track deviation on arrival into SFO when he became task saturated following multiple runway changes.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower SQL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was entering the San Francisco Bay Area airspace on VFR flight following to SQL and erroneously thought I had SQL in sight. In fact it was PAO. I told approach I had the airport in sight and was handed off to SQL Tower. Tower told me to report 3 mile final Runway 30. I erroneously turned toward PAO and began my approach. About 3 miles out I realized the airport did not look correct (the terminal was not on the east side of the field as I had remembered 3 years before). I realized my mistake and began to correct when Tower queried me and I began my correction. I breached PAO airspace during my correction. While there is no excuse; there were many factors which led to this mistake:This was the conclusion of my second cross country flight of the day. Fatigue had set in by the conclusion of the flight which factored into negating the knowledge of the airport and airspace that I had studied the night before and early the morning of the flight. It had also been 3 years since I had flown into San Carlos.When I saw PAO I just 'went visual' and ignored my instruments. It wasn't until I realized my mistake and began correcting that I recognized the full deflection of the visual approach that I loaded. I thought I was on an intercept course; however I was not.Another factor to the incursion was that when I loaded the visual approach the 'magenta line' disappears. I was on a direct course and would have recognized my deviation much faster if I hadn't loaded the approach until I was 100% sure I was approaching the correct airport. Actions that could have prevented the incursion:Study the destination airport just before departure; not a leg before.Stay on flight following until they hand you to Tower and I am sure I have the airport in sight. Use my secondary GPS magenta line guidance when I load the visual approach.Be more focused on identifying landmarks. Fly IFR into complex unfamiliar airspace. Recognize that fatigue will set in after so many hours of flying much of which was above 10;000 ft.




Synopsis: Bonanza pilot reported fatigue; resulting in a visual approach to the wrong airport and a Class D airspace incursion.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working the Granite arrival sector; the Lake arrival sector was receiving aircraft from LA center over the LUXOR waypoint on the GRNPA arrival. The airport was on Configuration 3; landing runways 25; and 19. Departures off of runway 1; fly east and climb directly at the arrivals from LUXOR in this configuration. This event is an example of an ongoing problem with LA center delaying communications transfer of aircraft handed off to L30 TRACON on a routine basis until aircraft are at or inside L30 TRACON boundary. Due to this continuing routine late communication transfer the aircraft in question was not vectored and issued descent in a timely manner and turned on his last assigned route right into departure traffic; creating an unsafe condition. This unsafe condition continued as the aircraft was finally on the Lake sectors frequency at an altitude and speed and location that made it impossible for a descent and landing on runway 25; so was therefore vectored to the other runway 1 impacting the traffic already destined for that runway. A complex situation was made very difficult and unsafe due to routine delay of aircraft communication change by LA center.I have worked as an ATCS for [many] years. In all those years it has been reasonable and customary for aircraft to be changed to the receiver's frequency as soon as possible after completion of radar handoff. LA center sectors 6; 7; 8 and 16 routinely delay the communications change of completed handoffs until the aircraft are at or inside L30 TRACON boundary. This delay causes aircraft to be delayed and or rerouted and causes increased complexity and decreased safety as a result.If there is a valid reason for this delay in communications change and that reason is systemic; than a systemic change must be made to allow immediate communication change upon completion of handoff. If there is an individual valid reason for the delay in communications change then coordination of that reason must be given so planning can take place. In the absence of the above corrective fixes; there is no valid reason for the delay and it must be eliminated.




Synopsis: L30 TRACON Controller reports of an ongoing situation where the overlying Center sector is not transferring communications of aircraft until at the sector boundary or inside L30's airspace. Reporter states this happens often and leaves aircraft high or in conflict with other traffic.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Arrival weather reports indicated gusty winds and low ceilings; making the single direction ILS unusable. We came up with a plan to shoot the localizer and circle opposite direction; as this gave us the lowest minimums and the lowest workload. I had previously looked at the approach options before departure and in an effort to conserve battery life; I had pressed the power button; as I have done all month. When it came time to begin our descent; I pressed the power button to turn on the Surface EFB; and nothing happened; just a black screen. After dividing my attention between flying and getting the Surface to run for 3-4 min; I finally got the device restarted. I was without my own side navigation charts for 3-4 min; referencing my FO's charts across the cockpit. Landing occurred without event.Root cause is the Microsoft Surface EFB. Contributing is management's insistence on using this device despite the multitude of times it has crashed and pilots have lost situational awareness during it's extremely short test phase. Many of the crashes have occurred on my flight deck; on my device as well as my FO's; while conducting normal operations. Also contributing is the rushed timeline to get the device online and the normalization of deviance with the number of times this device crashes and zero effort made to address the issues. Pilots are just accepting that the thing crashes at least once a day. Contributing to the failure of the device is the lack of reports the company receives from pilots because of the time consuming process of submitting problem reports via the ASAP program; also the lack of training/documentation provided to the pilot group about reporting problems with the Surface EFB.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a problem obtaining critical flight information from his Microsoft Surface EFB in a timely fashion. He stated that the problem is chronic and is directly related to the brand of electronic device chosen by his company.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYAM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MYAM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Company charts and NOTAM's did not reflect an operational Control Tower/Ground Control/ATIS. We canceled IFR with Miami Center around 5;000 feet when we had the field in sight. I was making position reports on CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory Frequency) and was contacted by Tower over CTAF with a frequency for Tower. We were approximately 15 miles out and performing a left 360 for separation at the time. Tower ask us to report established on final. When we were back on final they cleared us to land. On short final I noticed that the rotating beacon was on. After landing and taxiing in; I discovered that the Tower had been operational for the past two weeks. On flight after departing VFR and getting back into ACARS range we received the missing NOTAM for the first time; which reflected the information about the new Tower and that the ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting) had been downgraded. At this time we realized that the fire department on the field may not have been able to handle the amount of passengers our aircraft is able to carry.Lack of communication between the company and ATC. Previous [company] pilots not reporting changes over the past few weeks of flying into the airport.




Synopsis: First Officer reported not knowing the airport had an operational Control Tower until Tower Controller called the crew on CTAF and advised them of the correct frequency to be on.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon gear retraction EICAS message 'GEAR disagree' and 'gear doors' with advisory lights. Performed QRH procedures. Contacted Maintenance Control and confirmed return to base. Extended the gear early and had the same EICAS messages; and no green down and locked lights for the two main gears. Performed QRH procedure for Gear disagree with handle in down position and did an alternate gear extension. The time lapse before we got the left green light was approximately four minutes; and we did not get the right green light for approximately an additional 1 1/2 minutes. The timing seem off to us so out of an abundance of caution we did a low approach so the Tower could confirm that all the gear was down. ATC advised us that they had equipment standing by.  We came around for another approach and landed with the gear doors open.




Synopsis: B767-200 Captain reported a gear door problem and landed with out incident.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OKC.Airport, OK
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower OKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After pushback and engine start from the gate at OKC; I called Ground Control for taxi and they asked me if we wanted Runway 31 for departure. I looked at the Captain and we both agreed since it's a shorter taxi. I recall mentioning to the Captain that 'I guess they opened Runway 31;' since it was reported closed on the ATIS. I accepted the offer and we were issued a taxi clearance to Runway 31. Once clear of the ramp; I pulled out the OPC to recalculate for the new runway. Shortly thereafter; at the runway; I switched to Tower frequency and we were cleared for takeoff for Runway 31. I don't know why the runway was listed closed on the ATIS; but it did not seem unusual to us that it was closed and then reopened by ATC. Furthermore; both Ground and Tower Control cleared us to the runway so we didn't question it. Finally; neither of us saw any markings to indicate that Runway 31 was closed. I feel that we both acted in a safe manner in this case. I don't recall seeing Runway 31 listed closed in any NOTAMs; and even if it was; I would assume that both controllers would be aware of their runway status. The next time; if there is any doubt; I will verify it with the controller.


Second narrative: On pushback in OKC; Ground Controller asked if we wanted Runway 35L or 31 for departure. We told them [Runway] 31. The First Officer made the adjustments to the OPC and FMC while we taxied out. He mentioned that he thought the runway had been closed earlier. I didn't recall seeing that but we both thought that the runway was open due to ATC offering it to us. I received a call from my Chief Pilot the next morning saying that Headquarters had been notified that we used a closed runway. We thought the runway was open. In hindsight; we should have asked the Controller about it.


Synopsis: First Officer and Captain reported departing a runway that ATIS showed as closed but controllers asked if they wanted to depart on. Pilots accepted runway and later found out through company that it was closed.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after departure passenger reported rear cabin was excessively hot. Simultaneously 'Duct O'Heat R' amber caution message appeared on MFD and pilot sensed an abnormal smell. As per emergency procedures manual; the air source was switched to L. Pilot requested ATC for return to departure airport which was immediately authorized. Subsequent investigation identified a cracked pre-cooler in the right engine as the source of the hot air and was slated for immediate service and repair.




Synopsis: A Cessna Citation pilot described an excessively hot cabin along with a duct overheat warning that resulted in a return to the departure airport. Subsequent inspection revealed a cracked pre-cooler.