elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZEG.ARTCC, AB
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center CZEG
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain started the descent into CYYC at the top of descent for the altitudes that were programmed into the FMGC. Were initially cleared pilot's discretion to FL240. Soon after starting the descent we experienced an ECAM for a failure of the HP valve 2. The cabin descent rate increased as the pressurization tried to deal with the issue. I dealt with the ECAM and the Captain slowed the rate of descent to help slow the rate of descent of the cabin.  We were switched to approach at some point and given a 'descend and maintain 10;000.' We were above profile at this point and I mentioned that we still needed to make the altitude restriction at EBGAL. The Captain responded that that was not the case since we had received a descend and maintain clearance. We had a brief discussion about it and he queried the controller what speed he would like at EBGAL though not what altitude. I assumed that I had misread the recent changes and rescinding of said changes incorrectly as we discussed it. In retrospect; I should have just queried ATC or asked for relief on the published constraints. We ended up crossing EBGAL at about 15;000 ft. instead of at or below 14;000 ft.


Second narrative: In fact; my FO was right. Transport Canada rescinded all 'descend via' clearances; and now a 'descend and maintain' clearance requires compliance with the higher altitudes charted on the arrival; unlike US procedures and prior Canadian procedures. I had read the bulletin; glanced over the CYYC NOTAM to that effect; buried within two full pages of NOTAMS for the aerodrome; but had not been able to recall the information in the moment.This was my first flight to Canada since the confusing series of bulletins with multiple changes to Canadian ATC procedures. I was tired from the early wakeup; and I was distracted by the aircraft system failure and the prospect of injuring someone by allowing the cabin pressure to dump.


Synopsis: A320 Flight Crew experienced an HP Valve 2 Fail ECAM message during descent and the Captain failed to meet a crossing restriction.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for the FMS Visual 28R SFO. (We saw the airport 30 miles out) after loading the FMS Visual I hard tuned the ILS frequency for 28R in my MCDU. While descending on the FMS Visual we armed the approach in error prior to reaching the final approach alt. realizing this I elected to hand fly the arrival and meet all crossing restrictions. At the FAF we were gear down flaps 3 and on speed. Inside SAMUL SFO Tower instructed us to sidestep to 28L; we complied. At 1;000 AGL we were flaps full on speed on vertical and lateral profile. At this point I was on the VASI for 28L; target speed plus 5 KTS. The pilot not flying informed me the ILS 28L was installed so I turned my Flight Director (FD) back on. However my FD told me to fly to 28R. I asked the pilot not flying to clear the hard tuned ILS to 28R so I might regain 28L FD info. At about 800 AGL we got a GPWS warning whoop; whoop pull up terrain pull up. I had complete confidence of our position; we were over SFO bay; short final on 28L on VASI (two red; two white) meeting all stabilized criteria; 30 miles visibility; there is no terrain 2 miles prior to 28L threshold; just bay. I knew where we were the FMGC did not. I elected to safely continue the approach and landing versus going around with a confused FMGC; landing was normal. When we parked at the gate we noticed both altimeters read -450 MSL. We have no idea how that happened both FCU altimeters were set accurately. The GPWS sounded twice when the pilot not flying removed the hard tuned 28R ILS. I had flew this aircraft on the prior leg and the FMGC failed enroute and I wrote it up; it returned to normal 5 minutes later so I canceled the write up. At first I thought we had an FMGC map shift when we got the warning until we parked and saw the altimeter error. From now on I'm not going to hard tune the ILS and correctly execute the managed approach.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences an GPWS terrain warning during visual approach to Runway 28L at SFO and continues the approach to landing. The ILS 28R had been hard tuned previously and had to be changed when cleared for Runway 28L. Both altimeters read 450 feet low at the gate.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PWT.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G PWT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The weather at the airport was unlimited clear. It was night and the sky was black with stars. I departed and about two miles north of the runway; while climbing; encountered totally unexpected IMC. I momentarily lost control of the aircraft; recovering near the ground. After regaining control and locating the airport I returned for an uneventful landing.Two other aircraft departed shortly before and after me. Both later reported to me that they encountered the same completely unexpected IMC. They also returned to the airport and made uneventful landings.We all agreed that there was no way that any reporting service or person on the ground at the airport could have seen the cloud we encountered to the north in the darkness.There is no system that I know of that could have warned us of the IMC conditions. However; for my part; instantly and instinctively switching from visual to instrument flying would have precluded this incident. The key is reacting to an unexpected situation.




Synopsis: A J35 Bonanza pilot inadvertently entered IMC conditions and lost control shortly after takeoff on a dark moonless night. The pilot recovered control near the ground and returned to his departure airport.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Airport Personnel; Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection; Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback off of gate; the tug driver stopped the aircraft abruptly. He told us via headset that personnel working on a gate behind us had left a baggage cart behind our aircraft. He told me that this was normal and they do it sometimes on purpose (I do not know the details of this; other than he said they don't get along with each other). A few seconds later we began pushing back again. We again stopped abruptly. I then asked what was going on again. He told me they were going to pull us back towards the gate and push us out tail east in the alley to get us off the gate and avoid any obstacles behind the aircraft. There was a wing walker at all times during these events. I was contacted by (company) safety department about damage found to the tailcone of the aircraft by maintenance personnel the next morning. Nothing else unusual happened during the taxi; takeoff; flight; or landing. This was our only flight in this aircraft. I find it possible that we were pushed into something (possibly a cart mentioned above) during the initial pushback; but not notified of it.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported Maintenance personnel found damage on the aircraft tailcone during post flight inspection.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DSM.Airport, IA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DSM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing out for take off at DSM we were monitoring the Tower frequency. On the Tower frequency we heard a conversation between DSM Tower and a flight of two F-16's. The F-16's were coming in to land and Tower inquired if they wanted the 'cable' up or down. They responded that they wanted the 'cable' up. Approximately 15 seconds later the Tower advised them the 'cable' was showing 'up.' By this time we were at the hold short lines for Runway 31. A minute or so later; and before the F-16's landed; Tower cleared us for take off. I immediately inquired about the status of the 'cable' and if it was up or down. Tower responded that it was at the departure end of the runway and wouldn't affect our take off roll. I responded back that we were not going to take off with the 'cable' up! Tower seemed flustered and then told us the distance to the cable; which was 9;000+ feet; I said I don't care; we are not taking off with it up. Tower then cancelled our take off clearance and told us to continue holding short of the runway. A minute or so later the F-16's landed; Tower advised us the cable was now showing down; and then cleared us for take off. We took off without incident.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier refused take off clearance when ATC confirmed arresting cables; requested by inbound military aircraft; were up at the departure end of the runway.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During push back from [the] gate; the tug stopped and driver advised us that our left wing may have contacted the wing of the aircraft on [the adjacent gate].


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


Synopsis: B777 Captain reported that the aircraft hit another aircraft on an adjacent gate on pushback due to the pushback crew's failure to judge the distance between the two aircraft.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the initial climbout; the flight attendant called and informed me that a piece of the interior of the aircraft had fallen on passengers. She stated that no one was injured and she had moved the passengers away from the fallen piece. She advised me that it was still hanging with sharp edges and was a danger to the passengers. We returned to [departure airport] and maintenance met us to make the repair. Upon inspection; it was the sidewall light cover that had fallen. It had cracked around the screw holes and become loose.


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


Synopsis: DHC-8-300 flight crew reported that part of the ceiling panel fell during climb.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure from [Runway] 10L out of BOI airport; ATC asked us if we were flying runway heading or if we were tracking the 098 radial from BOI VOR. We then realized our mistake. We were in fact on runway heading and not tracking the 098 radial per the departure procedure. There was rising terrain to the north or left of our course and the wind was 30 KTS from the south; which was pushing us toward the terrain. We even had the terrain up on our MFD and I had made a comment about how something didn't seem right. At that point ATC gave us a right turn until we were higher than the terrain and then cleared us on course. We turned on course and at no time did we get an EGPWS warning.This was the last leg of the day for us and it was at night during IFR conditions. We had a scheduled 12 hour day; which I believe played a big part in this event. We were tired and I have personally noticed that after 10 hours of duty my attention to detail is reduced. I think it is unrealistic to maintain the same level of competency after 10 hours of duty. Neither one of us had ever been to BOI and were unfamiliar with the airport. We read over all the info available to us including the departure procedure but we misunderstood the chart. We thought it said runway heading and not track the radial. I think having this info on the company airport page as a reminder to all of us would be very helpful. There is info on the arrival part of the page but nothing for the departure.




Synopsis: When an ERJ-170 flight crew flew runway heading; 098 degrees; vice the BOI 098R per the SID; a strong south wind drifted them toward high terrain. An alert Air Traffic Controller questioned their track and then vectored them clear of the terrain.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the instrument approach into JHM. The Aircraft before him reported BKN048 10 NW of the airport. Aircraft X was 15 NW of JHM descending when a VFR aircraft on a 1200 squawk departed JHM head on. I issued traffic advisories to Aircraft X but had no idea who the other aircraft was. Traffic advisories became traffic alerts 5 miles between the two aircraft at 4800 (same ALT). Then at two miles at 4800 the Captain says 'I'm going right'. A right turn would have put the Aircraft X even closer and the targets would have merged. I told the Aircraft X to make a left 360 before proceeding back on course; they were below the MVA at the time but over water. I noticed Aircraft X had climbed to 5000 and asked if they had an RA. The pilot replied in the affirmative and I reported it to my Supervisor. Later we found out the other aircraft was Aircraft Y when they requested flight following from the adjacent sector. Recommendations:1. Request flight following in and out of JHM.2. JHM issues a VFR code on the ground and has them contact HCF on departure.3. Development of a VFR procedure where aircraft remain clear of the final approach course.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reported an airborne conflict between an IFR departure and a VFR aircraft.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: From frequency XYZ.A to XZB.A we not only received a ridiculously late handoff; but we in turn found our self at 22;000 feet 30 miles out from the airport.  We were only able to maneuver to descend because of visual conditions.This is the first of many reports due to ATC inappropriate staffing.  The Controller that was unable to hand us off was clearly saturated with work and busy enough to make us pilots concerned that the Controller did not have ours or others best interests at hand.




Synopsis: Pilot reported communication issues with ATC left them too high near their destination and stated the Controller was overworked and understaffed.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a VOR/DME to Runway 34. We then had Aircraft Y; inbound from the north. LC1 had Aircraft Y cross over the field to enter the downwind for Runway 34; to avoid the wake turbulence from Aircraft X's circle. Once Aircraft Y had established himself in the downwind at 020 ft; Aircraft X was on a 1 mile final; at approximately 027 ft; and claimed to still have the runway in sight. At this point; I told the Local Controller that he was not going to be able to land; and to climb him to 030 [feet]; in order to clear Aircraft Y. The LC1 controller felt it was more important to widen out Aircraft Y's downwind; to avoid Aircraft X. I instructed him again to climb Aircraft X; as he was still descending. The LC1 controller climbed him to 030; while I worked on coordinating a heading for Aircraft X. They both landed safely; after Aircraft X was vectored out for the Visual Approach; and Aircraft Y landed immediately after the go around. Aircraft Y pilot called later and informed us that Aircraft X came within 200 ft of him.Have a cutoff point. Had we climbed Aircraft X at a 1 mile final when he was too high; he would have been no factor for Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an NMAC due to Local Controller's sequence of two aircraft.