elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An A319 was scheduled to be pushed off gate and taxi to the hangar. I was the lead and I was running city bags because my entire crew had gone home as scheduled. I radioed that no one was there and I would be back shortly. I returned and was told that [aircraft] was there to get pushed. I again radioed Zone-Control and said I was by myself and needed a push person and another wing walker. I removed the air and went back inside the kiosk to wait for others. I got a call on the phone and was asked to guide the bridge off. I went outside but the bridge was moving off before I could get there to act as a guide. The mechanic came down (in street clothes with no safety vest) and said I could push the aircraft then. I said I was not qualified and we needed two wing walkers. He said no just one because it was going to the hangar. I said no that we had to have two and I would be one. He said he would push and get someone else. I then walked out on the Number 1 Engine side to wing walk. Meanwhile; I called control on the radio and said that a man in street clothes wanted to push with one wing walker. I was told the man was in fact a Mechanic from the [Ramp] Tower and I only needed one walker. I said no that the lessons I have recently taken require two. Another lead got on the radio and said that I was correct and the SOP requires two. Shortly after; an SUV pulled up on the other side of the aircraft. A man in dark clothes with NO wands or safety vest got out and proceeded out. The aircraft started the push with no signal to me that they were moving. Thankfully there were no vehicles approaching. I don't know what the hurry was but there seemed to be a complete disregard for safety of the aircraft or the people (me). I did receive a phone call after from a [Company] Controller saying that he was wrong and that I was right in stating the need for two wing walkers.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported SOPs were not properly followed in a push-back maneuver that presented a danger to personnel.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was taxiing to my parking area in Section X at ZZZ after landing.  The Controller had approved me to taxi all the [way to] parking; and asked a larger twin to hold in Section X and let me pass first.  Unfortunately; the twin aircraft was blocking the entry (he was not over the line though); but I couldn't get by him into the parking area.  Since Coronavirus hit; this was the most planes parked at Section X; and I had limited options to enter the area due to the many planes parked on site.  I stopped; was thinking what to do and was about to radio to the Controller; but the twin pilot radioed first; telling the Tower I had stopped and probably wanted the twin to exit first.  The Controller asked if I wanted to give way; which I agreed...as I basically had no choice if I was to park in Section X.  The Controller then (politely) told me next time to park as that was the direction he had given me.  I replied 'Roger' and left it at that.If I could do it again; I would have entered Section X earlier where there was a gap between parked planes; but that was quite a distance from my hanger; and I would have to maneuver between the many parked planes.  Or; should I have radioed earlier that my pathway was blocked and requested the twin exit the area first?  I am unclear on the proper procedure in this situation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that during taxi another aircraft was blocking entry into the parking area and that parking options were limited due to many parked aircraft since COVID-19 started.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I (C500)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In the climb out the pilot side PFD went blank.  Autopilot was then engaged.  No signs were indicated in the cockpit of an impending failure prior.  The Pilot in Command (PIC) ran through the checklist for blank PFD failure in flight.  It was determined through checklist that circuit breakers were still in and avionics cooling fans were operational.  Flight was continued as checklist did not suggest diversion other than to continue.  At cruise flight the First Officer notified me PFD number 2 had flickered.  10 seconds later PFD number 2 tube went blank.  At this point PIC took controls while still under autopilot.  Once again checklist was read for PFD blank screen.  At this point in time to descent was 30 minutes away.  PIC determined that given the visual conditions and the fact that no navigational systems had failed and no flags were present the descent and landing could be completed safely and without incident to the destination.


Second narrative: In the climb out the pilot side PFD failed. Autopilot was then engaged. No signs were indicated in the cockpit of an impending failure prior. The Pilot in Command (PIC) ran through the checklist for PFD failure and measures were followed for a possible over-temp of the PFD. The brightness was turned down and circuit breakers were checked but were all in. Avionics cooling fans were checked to be operating and were. 25-30 minutes later I realized the screen flickering on my side and within seconds it went out. PFD2 failed. I transferred controls to PIC and ran same checklist. PIC engaged autopilot. Visual conditions were present; and flight continued without incident and landing at destination.


Synopsis: A C500 Flight Crew experiences a failure of the Captain's PFD during climb and elects to continue after complying with checklist procedures. Thirty minutes later the First Officer's PFD fails. The crew continues another thirty minutes to destination in VMC and lands safely.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Tower, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Other UAV Pilot
Operating under: Other Part 107
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I the RPIC (Remote Pilot in Charge) called Tower per the instructions to inform them about the UAS operation that would be taking place within the next fifteen minutes at the location. Tower acknowledged the request and the RPIC conducted the mission. The RPIC called Tower at the conclusion of the operation. Tower acknowledged the message and the RPIC wrapped up for the night. Six days later the RPIC realized that he had flown outside of the Certificate of Authorization (COA) by flying a day earlier than what was specified in the COA (Certificate of Approval).The RPIC received a request to fly the Class C 0' Grid Area (Per the FAA UAS FM) so he determined that filing through Drone Zone with night operations included would be the fastest way to acquire the approval. RPIC advised the FAA representative; about his intentions for adding night operations was to be able to gain approval faster. The approval came in and the RPIC thought the timing was perfect and did not check the authorization start date on the authorization itself. He made the error because he was eager to be able to fly that area.The RPIC wanted to get the photos by deadline. The Operator was excited to have the COA in hand. The Operator expected the start date to be the same date as requested but the FAA changed the date to be the day after only on the COA but it was still shown as the requested date on Drone Zone. Drone Zone shows the Approved Start Date as one date and also shows that the modified Approved End Date was changed to three days later.




Synopsis: A UAS pilot operated their drone on a different day than what was approved by the FAA.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Descending via the BANKR2 RNAV Arrival into CLT we missed our crossing altitude at OPALS by 6;000 feet. We were given a last minute arrival change while on an initial descent from 33000 feet. We loaded the arrival and verified the crossing altitudes. We were given the initial fix on the BANKR2 Arrival and a crossing altitude of 27000 feet which was met. We were then given a descent via which we were complying with until we noticed the aircraft was not going to make a restriction by that time ATC gave us a vector and an altitude. This event occurred because it was an arrival change while descending via a different arrival. Also this arrival has crossing altitudes that are cross at or above and between very large altitude windows with speed restrictions and very small distance. The FMS complied with the top altitude in a crossing altitude window. CLT was landing north. The arrival needs to be redesigned with smaller crossing altitude windows; or we need to manually adjust the altitudes and make the bottom altitude in a crossing window hard.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported missing a crossing restriction while on the BANKR2 RNAV arrival to CLT airport.
Date: 201911
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We have been on the night shift all week; including an all-night transcontinental flight on Day 2 landing at about XA00. We were showing for the day at about XL00 every day. I don't think either of us have gone to bed prior to about XV00 any day this week. Yesterday; at the end of day 5; we landed at about XP30; had to clear customs; and were restocking the airplane; when we received a brief for a XC45 show the next morning; for a flight.  This would have been a 10 hour turn; and a 7 hour 15 minute shift from the start time the day before.  We fatigued due to the body clock flip. There needs to be a limit on circadian shifts; especially when they are shifts to the left. A 10 hour turn; and a seven hour shift with the first flight the next day though technically a legal brief; is NOT smart; or safe scheduling.  We used the fatigue policy; but there are crews out there that would have felt compelled to accept this brief.  The crew should not be the last link in the chain; this situation is easily prevented with scheduling limits. This next destination is one of the higher risk airports we fly to; even with the recent improvements; and the risk control measures in place.  Being scheduled to go in there after a 10 hour turn; and a 7 hour circadian shift; with a First Officer on IOE added even more to the risk.  It should not have been scheduled.  I would like to see the fatigue model for this event (as scheduled). I would also like to share this event with scheduling. I would like to know if this flagged anybody's attention during the scheduling process. We have to get better at eliminating these circadian shifts; before we have a mishap.




Synopsis: A Fractional jet pilot reported cancelling their trip due to fatigue due to the scheduling practices of their company.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was repositioning the Super Cub to a family owned farm due to ramp construction at the ZZZ where the aircraft is normally based. I have landed on the farm several times in various aircraft and had walked the landing location. After several low reconnaissance passes and noting tall weeds; I selected a landing location that had no obvious tall weeds. After making an uneventful landing; during the roll-out the main tires hit some dense weed undergrowth not visible from the air. While slow; there was just enough energy remaining to cause the aircraft to flip onto its back. There were no injuries and the damage is minimal. One action that may have prevented the incident would be to mount larger tires to the aircraft for planned off airport landings. Another would be to cut all vegetation from intended landing area on owned land.




Synopsis: PA-18 pilot reported that during landing roll-out; the tires contacted some weeds which caused the airplane to flip over.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ for an ILS approach. We were already configured with slats extended and upon calling for flaps 15 we could not get the flap lever to move out of the slats extend position. After multiple attempts at operating the flap lever with no results; we executed an uneventful go around. We then took delay vectors while running appropriate checklists. After further attempts at manipulating the flap lever we were able to free it and the flaps operated normally for the remainder of the flight. We then executed a normal approach and landing at ZZZ.Unsure of cause. Seemed like the flap lever was hung up somehow.




Synopsis: McDonnell Douglas First Officer reported a jammed flap lever; which was eventually freed.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GEG.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GEG
ATC / advisory: TRACON GEG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: When briefing the ILS 21 in GEG I referenced terrain to the east and northeast of the airport. We both looked over our approach plates and the low chart to get more information about the terrain. I hadn't flown into GEG in a few years and the Captain flew there a couple weeks ago for the first time in many years.At around 20 miles from the airport we were in and out of the clouds on a heading of 270 which had us heading toward the FAF for the ILS 21. We were also given a descent to 6;500 feet. The autopilot was on and we were in an idle descent. Just below 7;000 feet the GPWS gave us a 'terrain' warning. I immediately executed the terrain avoidance maneuver by advancing the thrust levers to TOGA; disengaging the AP and Auto Throttle and inputting full aft stick. I had briefed an MSA of 7;100 feet so I leveled off around 8;200 feet and reengaged the autopilot and auto thrust. The Captain told the controller what we were doing and she didn't understand. Eventually she said her supervisor mentioned that a few airplanes had also experienced terrain warnings. We were now clear of the clouds and continued to an uneventful visual approach and landing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier crew reported receiving GPWS terrain warning during vectors to ILS runway 27 [into] GEG. Crew performed escape maneuver. Altitude cleared to was below the Minimum Sector Altitude for that sector.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We were] departing Runway XX at ZZZ. Advanced the throttles to 40% and selected TOGA (Takeoff Go Around) to engage auto throttles; throttles started advancing unevenly with the number 1 engine spooling up slower than number 2. At about 70% the number 1 throttle started retarding towards idle and at that time I rejected the takeoff. Speed was approximately 20 - 30 kts.; alerted ATC of the reject and exited the next taxiway. Completed the RTO (Rejected Takeoff) check list and decided we should return to the gate and have maintenance look at the engine.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to auto throttles not advancing evenly.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored at 4000; NYC Approach advised us of VFR traffic at 3500'. We could not identify the aircraft; however we did receive a 'TCAS TA.' The TCAS showed that the VFR traffic was climbing and shortly thereafter we received a TCAS RA; 'level off.' The First Officer (FO) disconnected the autopilot and climbed approx. 200'-300'. I notified Approach that we were complying with an 'RA' and then we returned to our assigned altitude.  No further action was taken and the flight concluded without event.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported the flying First Officer responded to a 'level off' RA by climbing several hundred feet.