elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Some operations gate at IAH are at a slope that can cause potential danger to employee; aircraft and all equipment involved during pushback procedure. I encountered an issue where the aircraft dragged my pushback tug upon the pilot release of the brakes. The aircraft was fully loaded with fuel; passengers and cargo. This load makes it very dangerous for an aircraft tow tractor to control as the gate also has a downward slope. This issue has occurred on several occasions to many different employees.




Synopsis: IAH Ramp Agent reported the ramp has a slope which caused an aircraft to drag its attached tug when the brakes were released.
Date: 201407
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am submitting this to highlight a threat that is built into the new RNAV arrivals into IAH in hopes that we can permanently mitigate them for future crews. There were no incidents on this flight and all threats were mitigated successfully.The flight was in clear evening skies with not many airplanes in the pattern. We were cleared to descend via the DRLLR2 into IAH. I asked for the runway transition; so we would know the bottom altitude to set into the MCP window and were told that Approach would give us that assignment. We debated what altitude to put in the MCP. We agreed on 7;000 until we received a runway assignment that would dictate something different; as that is the highest of the three runways.I see on the arrival chart that it says to 'EXPECT runway assignment from Houston TRACON upon initial contact.' I question whether a 'descend via' clearance is legal when there is no prescribed bottom altitude.' Are we supposed to put 8;000 ([all DRLLR arrivals must cross] DOMNO between 10;000 and 8;000) until we get a runway assignment; or do we put the highest of the runway transition altitudes until we receive an assignment? I would think that Center would clear flights to 'descend via the DRLLR2 except maintain 7;000 [the highest of the runway transition 'bottom' altitudes]' when the bottom altitude is based on a runway assignment that Center does not have. The MSCOT RNAV STAR has the same problem. The changes are new and the controllers and pilots are working well together to make sure there are no errors. There is the possibility that there is a standard way to figure the bottom altitude that I am missing; in which case; please let me know.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer questions the legitimacy of Center clearing flights to 'descend via' the DRLLR (and MSCOT) RNAV STARS to IAH without also providing a bottom altitude to which cleared; the reason being that there are three runway transitions beyond DOMNO; the last common fix; which include two different bottom altitudes.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was landing LGD.  I checked the NOTAMs and advised the pilot of a runway closure (16/34).  He said there was only one NOTAM published and [that] was not it.  Yesterday I informed another pilot of the closure and he said he was unaware of the NOTAM as well; but didn't tell me it wasn't published.  I know it is the Controller's responsibility to verify NOTAMs; but in many cases the workload is so high and the NOTAMs are written in such a cryptic manner that [they] are difficult to decipher that it is easy to miss important closures.  The runway closure; which in my opinion is the most important NOTAMs; was sandwiched 4 NOTAMs down between information about a taxiway and a change to minimum climb rates for the ODP.  The system is clearly broken and has been for some time.  My impression is that the FAA really doesn't care and is waiting for a serious accident and subsequent lawsuit before they will take any meaningful action.NOTAMs need to be in plain language and ordered in a manner of most important to least important.  There also needs to be a way that pilots can obtain NOTAMs while airborne.I informed management what the pilot told me about the NOTAM not being disseminated.  They verified the NOTAM about the runway closure was in effect but I'm not sure they took any other action to make sure it was being properly distributed.




Synopsis: ZSE Center Controller reported issues relating to NOTAMs and how they are written.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X was climbing off of IFP on the IFR departure to 8000 feet. While in the turn and climbing on the departure; Aircraft X turned and climbed into a VFR overflying westbound over IFP. I was not talking to the VFR aircraft and not yet in contact with Aircraft X when Aircraft X turned and climbed into the VFR aircraft. I tried giving a full route clearance away from the target; unfortunately Aircraft X did not get it in time. When I checked to see if they were in fact on frequency; they advised me that they responded to a RA. I took down information and continued to give them the correct clearance. Not sure if this could have been avoided at all since I was not in communication with the other aircraft and I don't think IFP tower could have given them traffic in time.I'm not sure how to avoid this situation since I was not in contact with the VFR target. No way to know 100% what altitude to issue when not verified.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller reported an aircraft departing a controlled airport on an IFR clearance responded to an RA for a VFR aircraft. The IFR aircraft had not yet contacted the Controller and the VFR aircraft was not in communication with ARTCC.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I almost caused the gate agent to deploy a slide. After disarming my door and crosscheck the number 3 flight attendant's service door; I armed my door. The agent knocked and I gave thumbs up. As the door cracked I realized the door was armed and yelled for agent to stop. The slide pack came out about a quarter way. Maintenance put the slide back very quickly without incident; and the aircraft continued service. I believe this event occurred for a few reasons. I was worked too many legs and long days straight on reserve; causing me fatigue and lack of alertness. Another reason I believe this occurred is because I was distracted by the number 3 flight attendant who was talking to me when I needed to be focused on disarming and crosschecking the forward doors. I should have just asked her to stop talking to me for a minute.I think in order to avoid this from reoccurring; maybe not give a reserve more than 3 days straight; and have reserve availability periods instead of 24 hours on call. Also banning flight attendant cellphone use in the aircraft would help too; as my number 3 could have caught the fact that I rearmed my door had she been paying attention to me instead of looking down at her phone. At the end of the day; this is all my fault and I accept that. I just feel that if I had more rest and a more experienced flight attendant with me; they would have been able to crosscheck my door properly; and avoid this all together.




Synopsis: B737 flight attendant reported a near slide deployment after becoming distracted and rearming the slide after arrival. Reporter also cited fatigue as contributing.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff roll the prior evening; it appeared that the propeller was not developing full RPM. I aborted departure and tied down the aircraft; with the intent of having the aircraft inspected the next day. There were no mechanics available; but I called my regular A&P and while running up the engine the problem appeared to have been resolved. He thought maybe the cable was temporarily stuck; but since the propeller was now working he did not think it was unsafe to fly. I inspected the prop and did not see anything wrong; and I flew the aircraft without incident. When I landed two hours later; I discovered one of the prop blades was loose; and the propeller has been removed and sent out for inspection. Arguably the aircraft was unairworthy and should not have been flown.




Synopsis: C177R pilot reported flying the aircraft with a loose propeller blade that he was not aware of.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 4A7.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 690 Series
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I accepted a hand off on the Turbo Commander 690 (AC90) from ZTL05 landing 4A7 at 5;000 [feet]. I advised the pilot no landing weather information was available for 4A7 and to expect a visual approach. When the aircraft reported the field in sight I cleared the aircraft for the visual and instructed him on how to cancel his IFR. A minute later the pilot called back and advised the airport was closed. I issued a clearance to FFC and the pilot landed without incident. The 4A7 Runway 06/24 was listed as closed on the SAIDS. It was not clear if any other runways existed or other taxiway were open for use. I would put in the Information that the entire airport was closed rather than just the runway. I assumed the pilot checked his NOTAMS and was going to land at the field. I also should have issued the NOTAM to the pilot to verify.




Synopsis: A80 Controller described a go-around event at 4A7 after clearing an arrival for a visual approach; the reporter acknowledging the SAIDS was listing the subject closed.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IWS.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Cockpit Lighting
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on initial approach RNAV 15 into IWS; approximately 1 mile outside of ORENT; I noticed I was below the glideslope. Minimum altitude at this point was 1700 msl and I was briefly as low as 1550 msl. This was discovered while scanning the instruments after reviewing the approach plate. Action was immediately taken to return to the proper altitude. I feel that a poorly lit altimeter contributed to this event as well as the distraction of a ringing cellphone.  Improved lighting of the altimeter as well as powering off any cell phones before critical phases of flight would have prevented this event.  The stress of making a night IFR approach into an unfamiliar field may also have contributed.




Synopsis: An IFR PA-32 pilot making a night time RNAV approach to IWS descended 150 FT below the FAF altitude when distracted by a ringing cellphone.  Also cited as contributing was poor lighting of the altimeter.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Auto Temperature System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was MEL right air conditioning pack. Inbound crew informed us that cabin temperature control was difficult; and cabin was very warm almost entire trip. MEL procedure was bleeds off takeoff and bleeds off approach and landing. Inbound crew said that after APU was started on approach; cabin began to cool down just before landing. Our leg was 30 minutes long; and dispatched at 14;000 feet. We elected to use APU air for pressurization at cruise; since it is rated to 17;000 feet; and it had already demonstrated it cooled the cabin better than engine bleed air. Takeoff was uneventful; and right pack switch was kept in HIGH as directed. Just after we were cleared to descend via the arrival; the cabin pressure warning horn went off. I checked the cabin altimeter; and it had just crept to 10;000 feet. We implemented procedures; and started the descent as previously cleared. The cabin altimeter went below 10;000 feet almost immediately; and the horn went off about the time we reached 8;000 feet. The flight continued to an uneventful bleeds off landing.I wrote up the APU for failure to keep pressurization at 14;000 feet. I followed up with Maintenance Control a few hours later and asked what the fix was that allowed the airframe to return to [the origin airport]. I was told by Maintenance Control that they thought the maintenance configuration of the MEL on that right pack might be faulty; which may be the cause of the poor temperature control. They also surmised that the airframe was 'leaky' enough that the APU was unable to keep it completely pressurized with just the left pack. They were still discussing the possibilities with no resolution at that time.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported that the aircraft was unable to maintain pressurization and temperature control.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL390 both ECCs failed as well as the additional failure of all limit protection; Captain's airspeed; Hydraulic A system pressure indication; and radar disagree. We held at an en route fix in radar contact and called Maintenance Control through Dispatch; advised ATC of our system losses; and declared an emergency. We then briefed the flight attendants; (no passengers on board) and did all normal and abnormal checklists. I then gave the First Officer pilot flying duties and we returned to our departure airport where we made an uneventful landing and filled out the logbook.




Synopsis: The flight crew of an air carrier aircraft suffered multiple system indication failures; declared an emergency; and returned to their departure airport for maintenance.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had C Hyd Elec 1 pump advisory on leg 1 to ZZZ. Continued with [Operations Control] concurrence. Was 'deferred' in ZZZ by MX. What really happened was the maintainer; just signed the write up and placed a yellow sticker in the right spot. I questioned him as to whether he was actually going to perform the MX steps for [the] MEL or just sign the write up. Silence. I politely reminded him that steps needed to be done like collaring the CB (Circuit Breaker); selecting Gen off; operating the working C2 hydraulic pump; confirming on EICAS; etc. I looked at the sign off; and failed to catch the part in quotes 'MEL [Designation] C1 ELEC HYD PUMP-INOP. PUMP DEACTIVATED'. When arriving in ZZZ1; I spoke at length about the ZZZ MX performance and what I should do if anything. He said he would get me his boss's number to report; as this was not the first time this maintainer has underperformed. On drive home ZZZ1 maintainer notified me; that not only was all of the above troubling; but that the ZZZ maintainer forgot (and I failed to catch); the statement in quotes outlined under Placard (M).Although I didn't feel tired; we were late out of [our departure airport]; the wx was socked in ZZZ with fog. Challenging approach; etc. New FO (First Officer); fast turn. Dumbfounded by ZZZ's lack of procedural knowledge with regards to MEL compliance. I'm a relatively new Captain. Missed catching a MX paperwork error.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported maintenance personnel at departure airport did not following MEL procedures.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for a tower-issued rolling (max power) takeoff RWY 22L. Upon taking the runway with a 28 kt right crosswind component and possible contaminated runway paint; during transfer of aircraft control to the FO PF (First Officer) (Pilot Flying) for the rolling takeoff; FO selected symmetrical TOGA and crosswind controls as CA (Captain) (Pilot Monitoring) was tilling to centerline. We got a 15 degree nose swing left then right of runway centerline. CA aborted the takeoff at 20 kts. Tower offered [a different runway more aligned with the wind]. We then accomplished the takeoff with no issues.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a low speed rejected takeoff due to directional control difficulties during a high crosswind takeoff.