elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach assigned us the Quiet Bridge Visual approach for 28R.  We departed ARCHI heading 260 as depicted; and intercepted the 275 course inbound to SFO VOR as depicted.  I had entered the radial and we armed the VOR.  The autopilot intercepted and flew the inbound radial.  The approach page shows altitudes at 20; 15; 10 and 6 DME from SFO VOR; each accompanied with the parenthetical statement '(For Class B Airspace)'.  In my mind; these were only recommended altitudes to keep us above the Class B floor; and I did not attempt to hit each one exactly.  Approach control gave us at least a couple further descent clearances while on this segment; which seemed to be corresponding to the depicted altitudes.  After the ILS glide slope came alive; I followed its descent path fairly closely until intercepting the ILS course inside the San Mateo Bridge; after which I followed it exactly.  The approach resulted in an uneventful landing and rollout with no comments by either Approach Control; or the Tower Controller.  After the flight; the First Officer and I discussed the intent of the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach; and it wasn't entirely clear whether the depicted altitudes were merely recommended; or required - and that is what prompted this report.We are very accustomed to IFR STAR's; which specify altitudes as 'at or below;' 'at;' or 'at or above.'  Although the Quiet Bridge's status as a visual approach implies pilot discretion with respect to altitudes; it nevertheless specifies an exact track to be followed -- which led us to wonder after the fact if the altitudes were expected and not merely recommended. Perhaps the addition of clarifying words such as 'at' or; 'recommended' would solve this ambiguity (as is done on the JFK Parkway Visual approach).


Second narrative: [Raport narrrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: McDonnell Douglas widebody flight crew reports being confused by the altitudes depicted on the Quiet Bridge Visual approach and whether they are manditory or recomended.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We were] at FL230 when the plane suddenly pitched aggressively down and autopilot disengaged.  I immediately grabbed [the] yoke and pitched up and tried to access the situation.  During this time the plane climbed about 1000 feet to FL240.  A safety pilot was with me and we discussed issue as we worked to get plane down to assigned altitude. After reviewing the situation we configured plane for level flight with manual control and decided to engage the autopilot again.  Same thing happened.  After a long time we went through all of the information on board and decided that perhaps we had a simple problem of incorrect nose pitch on autopilot and decided to try autopilot one more time with manual control of pitch up.  This did not work as it resulted in an even worse altitude excursion and ATC informed us that the traffic space was tight and we needed to hold that altitude and forget diagnosing autopilot.  We asked for descent to FL190 and flew the [remainder of the] trip without event.In hindsight I simply should have only tried the diagnosis one time or asked ATC for a block altitude to try a couple of things with autopilot. Weather at [destination] around [arrival] time was forecast to be around 800 feet with snow and 2-4 miles visibility; although it had been improving during flight according to onboard weather data. Fortunately I felt comfortable and was proficient at hand flying rest of trip and RNAV approach although conditions had improved enough that a visual approach could have been done. Decided to do approach for safety factor after stress of incident; long day and night conditions plus additional practice flying hand approach.




Synopsis: PC-12 pilot reported an altitude excursion resulted when the autopilot suddenly pitched down.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through approximately 13;000 feet we heard a loud bang; a bit of a shudder; immediately followed by an ECAM 'E1 Compressor Stall'.  The engine had shut itself down before an actions were taken (Maintenance pulled the logs and said it was 1 sec with an overtemp of approximately 180 EGT (exhaust temperature gauge) overtemp) CA (Captain) was PF (Pilot Flying) and maintained control of the aircraft while I checked the QRH and then completed the ECAM actions; QRH after engine shutdown checklist; non-routine landing considerations.  Approach and landing were normal with an overweight landing about 2000 pounds over max with a sink rate under 200 fpm. with minimal braking.




Synopsis: First Officer reported left engine failure on climb out; resulting in an air turn back and overweight landing.
Date: 202106
Location: 3J1.Airport, SC
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter FOD; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The airport management changed hands in 2007. Since then the current management has decided to not mow areas on airport which caused a dramatic increase in wildlife which has directly attributed to two bird strikes. Coyotes have started to wander on the airport runways hunting for food in the grossly over grown ditches next to taxiways and runways. Wind socks and flags have rotted and have fallen off poles. FARs have been proposed with no FAA approval. Ramps have been blocked off from GA pilots. Gates have had the combinations changed without notice to the pilots and placed high on the gate out of reach without the assistance of a ladder. Landing practice has been stopped due to noise. Grass landing areas designated by airport design have purposely been blocked by wrecked aircraft placement and at these same areas large vehicles were instructed to drive on the grass in order to cause rutting. Even bathrooms have over flowed and toilet paper not restocked is a normal occurrence. The pilots at 3J1 are asking for help.




Synopsis: Pilot reported 3J1 airport is in disrepair and deteriorating further under the new owners.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We recently received a mandate to wear masks on position and I have been complying with that; however the masks cause my glasses to fog up.  This is a problem with all the FAA issued masks; and the disposable masks.  There are no masks that don't cause my glasses to fog up.  I have tried the tape tricks and all the bending and positioning tricks that I can think of and my glasses still fog up.Since the FAA has mandated this; it has been a problem.Essentially; the FAA is asking me to void my medical every time I am on position.  If I do not wear my glasses; my medical is invalid.  Having fogged up glasses is like not wearing them at all; as far as vision goes.Allow us to take our masks off on position.  That would fix the problem.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported wearing an FAA mandated face mask is fogging up the Controller's glasses.  Reporter cannot remove glasses due to FAA Physical requirements.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure for a short 29 min flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; FA [Flight Attendant] C (Name) noted that she was smelling a strong harsh chemical smell. I agreed and smelt it also. It was a smell I remembered from my last Broken APU chemical/CO exposure. It was then safe to get up and we moved ourselves to the last passenger row away from the smell. It disappeared during cruise. We got back in our jump seat for landing. Just above second bell/ 8;000 feet the smell returned. By the time we landed I had a headache; was lightheaded and nauseous; my finger tips were blue; cold and tingling. As soon as I was safe we alerted the A F/A about what had happened and she relayed that info to the F/D (Flight Deck). We again removed ourselves from our jump seat during taxi to sit forward of the smell in the empty last row of passenger seats. My nausea and headache and lightheadedness persisted. I called the F/D to let them know we weren't feeling well and they then turned off the APU?? I think. We performed our safety duties and disarmed our doors and returned to the passenger seats. When walking forward to deplane; I continued to be dizzy and the nausea grew worse as we debriefed with the pilots. I decided to call in sick at that point. I went to ER (Emergency Room) and am currently being held and monitored. To get as far away as possible from the fumes; we occupied the last row of passenger seats during taxi. CO monitors on the plane??? We need to have information on what chemicals we are breathing.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a fume event which resulted in the reporter becoming ill.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BIL.Airport, MO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BIL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was given taxi instructions from Ground Control. I was not familiar with the airport and had misread the diagram and accidentally looked at an intersection just off of the ramp and thought it was the entrance to the taxiway. With this idea in my head I missed that this was the entrance to the runway and for whatever reason didn't see the runway sign. I taxied out over the runway sign and started to taxi onto the runway. Once I was nearly out where I noticed that the markings were runway markings and not taxiway markings. I immediately did a 180 and got off the runway and back onto the taxiway where I was supposed to be. Ground never said anything about it; but knowing I made a mistake I figured I better turn in a NASA report. I am very sorry for my mistake and will make sure to pay closer attention in the future.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the aircraft was taxied from the GA Ramp directly to BIL Taxiway C across Taxiway A and onto Runway 28R. Because the taxiway appeared to be part of the ramp and some distance from the runway; the hold short lines were recognized as taxiway markings not hold short markings. ATC did not say anything about the runway incursion.



Synopsis: A corporate pilot taxied onto a runway because the taxiway marking near the ramp was not recognized as the hold short line and only after seeing the runway markings was the error recognized.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After our second STAR change (of the three this afternoon); we also received a clearance to 'descend to FL340 then at pilot's discretion to descend to FL300 by CALVN.' CALVN is a fix on both new STARS into DTW: the HOTRD1 and CALVN1. CALVN1 serves Runways 4LR and 3LR whereas HOTRD1 serves the opposite direction runways. We descended and leveled at FL340 long before CALVN. I got a frequency change plus new ATIS and talked about another change to the arrival pending due to the opposite runways in use; and we also got an update from the Flight Attendant about a cabin item. I; as the Pilot Not Flying; failed to remind the Pilot Flying (PF) about the assigned altitude over CALVN that I read back but did not verify with the PF; either. Shortly before CALVN; ATC queried us about making FL300 by CALVN. We descended ASAP and missed the assigned FL by about 1500 FT over CALVN. We used max rate descent at idle power. ATC did not indicate there was an issue with traffic; nor did anything show on TCAS; other than general hollow-cyan colored diamond targets. ATC handed us to the next sector at FL300 and we continued without further event. The new direction dependent STARs into DTW are frequently switched and reassigned in flight and ATC seems to regularly assign the wrong STARS for the runways in use only to be switched multiple times per flight; even when the correct start was originally filed and/or cleared. Having multiple discussions in the cockpit about which STAR and altitudes are required causes confusion.




Synopsis: Captain reported failure to make a crossing restriction on descent into DTW; citing multiple arrival procedure changes by ATC as contributing.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climb going through 13;000 FT; we felt a moderate vertical jolt similar to wake turbulence. It was followed by ELAC 1 fault which had a long history in the past 7 days of faulting. Contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control. All agreed to returning and an overweight landing. Performed needed checklist and ECAM. Returned to field and uneventful landing.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports returning to the departure airport after an ELAC1 fault; which had occurred several times previously to this aircraft.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LIT.TRACON, AR
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON LIT; Tower LIT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the FLM for the shift; but was on break when Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 18 at LIT and was told to follow traffic.  The Aircraft X pilot had the traffic in sight and replied that he would follow the traffic.  He then descended and landed Runway 17 at ORK which is located 6 miles north of LIT and has a very similar runway configuration.  The CIC came and got me off of break and I entered the TRACON when the pilot cancelled IFR with LIT Tower and then departed ORK; VFR and landed LIT without incident.  I advised the Local Controller to have him call the Tower after he landed; but told the Local Controller that he did not need to give him the Brasher warning.  When the Aircraft X pilot called the TRACON I spoke with him and asked him what happened.  He advised that when he turned behind the traffic to follow he was lined up perfectly for Runway 17 at ORK and got focused on the runway and just landed there.  I told him that I was glad that he was safe and got his name and phone number and made a MOR entry on the log.


Second narrative: I was on an easterly heading northwest of Adams Field [LIT] at 3;000 FT MSL. I was cleared for the visual to 18 at Adams field and told to follow a King Air. When I turned to the south I misidentified Runway 17 at North Little Rock (ORK) as 18 at Adams. The runway lights were illuminated on Runway 17. At that point I lost visual contact with the King Air. I proceeded to land on 17 at ORK. This mistake could have been avoided by flying the approach to 18 at Adams using the navigational equipment available in the airplane.


Synopsis: A pilot and the LIT Tower Manager involved describe a landing at ORK Runway 17 while attempting to land at LIT on Runway 18.