elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was advised by the Flight Attendants just prior to push that the passenger prerecorded announcement system was playing. I called Maintenance who sent a local mechanic to check it out and who subsequently deferred the system. In the hustle and bustle of turning a long delayed jet; I neglected to coordinate with the dispatcher to amend the release for the new MEL item. Contributing to this was the fact we were already late and I was being rushed by operations and the agent. Additionally; and more importantly; was the fact that the company had us fly an extended day the day before with long airport sits. Over thirteen hours just from show to finish so in reality a fourteen hour plus day with respect to hotel door to door; which resulted in less than adequate sleep and no opportunity for me to get proper exercise which is every bit as important to me functioning at my highest levels as breathing.As long as the company continues to push us this hard; I for one will be occasionally filling out [reports] for missing small items because I'm not at my best. Additionally; the most mentally and physically dulling thing you can have me do is sit at airports. There is nothing relaxing or restful about these sits at all. And I absolutely see that dulling effect on everyone I fly with.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain reported he forgot to request an amended flight release due to fatigue.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ3
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ3
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was flying VFR with one passenger from ZZZ to ZZZ1 for a touch and go and back to ZZZ. In order to avoid the Class B airspace; I planned to do the FLY VFR shoreline route below class B shelf at 2;000 ft. In my cross country flight; I always like to take flight following. I did the same this time starting from Approach followed by ZZZ3 Center. I entered the shoreline [route] after clearing the class D of ZZZ3. I informed the ZZZ3 Center that I will be staying at 2;000 ft. along the shoreline route. When crossing over the [landmark]; I was informed of traffic at my 2 o clock. I couldn't see the traffic so I reported by saying 'looking for traffic'. At the same time; I turned a little to the left knowing that the traffic is to my 2 o clock. After about 20 seconds I saw the traffic crossing to my right and felt like it was about 200 ft. in horizontal distance flying at the same altitude. I continued to my planned route to ZZZ2 ; performed the touch and go and returned back to ZZZ1 using the VFR shoreline route again at 2;000 ft.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported a NMAC with crossing traffic.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This aircraft has two exit placard on the ceiling; one at the window exit and one at row 18. Nowhere in the emergency PA do we notify passengers that they are on a plane with two ceiling exit placards. Nowhere in the Passenger Safety Information Card is this information notified to our passengers. In the emergency PA; we tell our passengers; 'Signs overhead and lights on the floor will lead you to the exit'; however; they do not on this plane. If smoke is in the cabin and our passengers follow the ceiling exit placard; they will not be aware that the one at row 18 does not lead to the over-wing exits. This misleading information has the potential to cause serious harm and or death.




Synopsis: B737-700 Flight Attendant reported confusing location of the aircraft cabin emergency exit lights.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared by Approach to ZZZ and placed on a heading of 180 climbing to 040. The aircraft checked on with me still climbing below the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) of 030 heading towards a 050 MIA within a minute and a half. The aircraft was also climbing at less than a 300 ft per minute climb rate. I initially went to turn him away from the MIA but he was still below the MIA of 030. The pilot read it back as a question so I responded negative; maintain current heading of 180. And he read that back correct. The pilot was having a hard time hearing me also when I asked to be out of 030ft in 1 minute or less. So I asked him if he had all surrounding terrain in sight and to maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance then I also climbed him to 050ft. Pilots should advise if they're climb rate is going to be less than 300 ft per minute especially on an IFR clearance. Better coordination should have been done with myself and PDX approach.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller reported an IFR departure at less than expected standard climb rate entering a higher MVA.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During my pre-flight at the gate; I noticed that the cargo loading and ground crew was wearing 'Worldwide' safety vests instead of our Company. I observed no Company supervisors on the ramp. The ground crew was not ready for departure at departure time. They used non-standard phraseology during the pre-departure; push back; engine start and disconnect process. The ground crew opened the forward cargo door twice after the parking brake was released for push back without first notifying the Captain. The Captain flew to our destination and other than noting that the aircraft was nose heavy on takeoff; the flight was uneventful. After we parked at gate the Crew Chief entered the cockpit as the passengers were deplaning. He explained that the cargo had been incorrectly loaded and pointed to his 'Offload Report.' The report clearly showed that only ONE bag should have been placed in the forward cargo and the rest should have been in the aft cargo. The Crew Chief reported that the aft cargo was empty and ALL the bags were in the forward cargo. Obviously this is a very serious issue - one which could have caused aircraft controllability issues; or worse; a hull loss. The ground crew for our flight was one of the Company's recently outsourced crews. They used non-standard phraseology; indicating a lack of proper training. They were unable to prepare the aircraft for departure in a timely manner in spite of the fact that the cargo was relatively light; needing only one cargo bay. In my opinion; this lack of training; experience and supervision resulted in a very dangerous cargo loading error.Better training and supervision of new; improved outsourced contractors. Provide pilots with the same paperwork used to load the aircraft so we can double check with the load closeout/takeoff performance data and verify proper loading.


Second narrative: This report adds no new information.


Synopsis: A B737-800 crew reported that an outsourced ground crew loaded all freight forward when it should have been aft causing a nose heavy aircraft and also used non-standard phraseology during pushback.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Local; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft TOW (Take-Off Weight) approximately 140K lbs; CG 17.7; T.O. trim setting 2.7NU. During takeoff roll; approximately ten knots prior to rotate speed; nose gear began lifting off of runway. Nose down force applied to side stick controller failed to control pitch. At five knots prior to rotate speed nose gear became fully airborne and the aircraft continued an uncommanded rotation until fully airborne. For several seconds the side stick controller was unable to overcome the continued increase in pitch. As the automated pitch trim system continued to trim; normal flight characteristics were restored after approximately 20-30 seconds. Aircraft accelerated near the flap speed limit until control of the aircraft was restored.Both dispatch and maintenance were fully debriefed about this incident. I am waiting for the results of their investigations. Improper aircraft loading and/or errors in the [performance calculations] are suspected.Feedback from dispatch and maintenance are required to determine the cause of the incident prior to making any recommendations.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported uncommanded rotation prior to V1 that could not be overcome by the side stick.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL320 a loud bang was heard and felt. Right main gear door warning light and overspeed warning. No other indications. QRH was followed and complied with. Got new burn numbers from [Operations] and continued with only gear door warning. On touchdown we could feel the right main rumble. We rolled to the end and cleared [the runway]. Aircraft was towed to parking. We discovered a large hole in the wheel well door and a large hole in the outside tire on the right main gear.  Cause: Fault in tire or we picked up something on takeoff roll.


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


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported a main gear tire exploded in cruise at FL320 causing damage to the wheel well door.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ARTCC handed me two aircraft on collision courses at the same altitude! Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were going to lose separation within a few miles of crossing my boundary coming from Denver Center. I called the ARTCC 'controller' and told him to turn Aircraft X 30 degrees left to go behind Aircraft Y. He acknowledged that he would comply. He waited at least a couple minutes before he told the aircraft. The sooner he gave the clearance the better because there was a 100 knot tail wind on Aircraft X and he was going to pick up speed. I feel that the ARTCC 'controller' defiantly waited to turn Aircraft X because the aircraft took so long to start his turn; but this is only speculation.Retrain these people before a midair occurs!




Synopsis: ZMP ARTCC reported ZDV ARTCC handed off two aircraft at the same altitude on converging courses without taking action to ensure separation.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: FSS ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 150
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I finished pre-takeoff checklist and taxied towards end of runway [at an] uncontrolled airport with an active FSS. I was in radio communication with airport FSS. An aircraft reported turning base for a touch and go on the runway in use. I looked and saw the aircraft on base. It appeared as if I had lots of room so I reported my intention to expedite takeoff and clear the area prior to aircraft on base arriving. I rapidly took the runway at the end; which was in the displaced threshold area used for takeoff but not landing. I added the power and started the takeoff. About 1;000 FT down the runway; and just before lifting off; an aircraft reported 'Going Around.' As I lifted off a Cessna 150 passed overhead (with plenty of room to spare) on the missed approach. There had been another aircraft on approach in front of the one I saw on base. The Cessna 150 was evidently on final and by focusing on the aircraft on base I missed the one on final and cut him off by taking the runway. Cessna 150 continued climb out in front of me and I departed the pattern; (feeling like less than a pro) without further incident. Problem was haste and not adhering to procedures I teach my students at uncontrolled airports. I train students - prior to takeoff - announce; make a minimum 45 turn on the taxiway towards final to clear the area and preferably a 360 degree clearing turn on the taxiway to search the entire pattern prior to taking the runway; and announce again. If I would have practiced what I preach I most likely would have seen the other aircraft.




Synopsis: C180 pilot reports not seeing an aircraft on final approach; believing his only traffic is an aircraft on base. The C150 on final approach goes around as the reporter is about to lift off.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Captain rejected the takeoff at approximately 135-140 KIAS due to a red engine overheat light on the number two engine. Aircraft was brought to a stop. The Captain notified the flight attendants and passengers to remain seated. Then the aircraft was taxied clear of the runway. Fire crew assistance was requested to inspect the tires and brakes for damage.While waiting for the fire crew inspection; a flight attendant notified the Captain that an elderly passenger requested to go to the hospital and was not doing well. Once the fire crew reported no problems with the brakes or tires; the Captain taxied the aircraft back to the gate and requested EMT and medical personnel meet the flight.Once at the gate; EMTs tended to and removed the passenger. Once that passenger was removed; all other passengers were deplaned and the aircraft was turned over to maintenance.


Second narrative: On takeoff; right engine EGT climbed to 945; I called 'high EGT right engine' and pointed to the gauge. Captain immediately rejected the takeoff using standard procedure. Speed was approximately 138 knots; V1 was 145. Captain rejected takeoff outside high speed reject criteria.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experienced high EGT during takeoff and the Captain elected to reject the takeoff just prior to V1. A Flight Attendant notified the Captain that an elderly passenger had been adversely affected by the reject and EMT's should meet the aircraft at the gate.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed ZZZ; Runway X; on the SID (Standard Instrument Departure). Unfortunately we did not catch that the SID Runway X is not authorized for use by Aircraft X Make/Model. There are several holes (traps) that we missed. We received an ATC (Air Traffic Control) uplink with the SID. In later crew discussion - we believe that this was based on our originally planned runway 1 departure.Our flight was originally flight planned for Runway Y; via the SID. With a late ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) increase the working IRO (International Relief Officer) pointed out that we were no longer good to take off on Runway Y; that we needed Runway X. We asked ATC and were cleared out to Runway X.The takeoff and departure was normal and accomplished with SOP's; with no traffic or navigation conflicts. ATC never said anything about our departure. We didn't see any restrictions on the Jeppesen SID page. I forgot to re-check the 10-7 pages for departure notes after the runway change. None of us caught the note on the page that the SID is not authorized for Aircraft X Make/Model on Runway X.On the climb portion; after the turn to the northeasterly portion of the SID (at approximately 5;000 ft.) - the working IRO mentioned that we were not authorized to use the departure that we were already on. We had a quick look and since all elements of the flight appeared normal; we decided to discuss it later in the flight.We continued on and the flight was terminated in ZZZZ with no further issues or problems. ATC never queried us and I told the crew that I would be filing a report on our return.Also - I am a relatively new transfer to the ZZZ base; having been displaced recently. When I flew out of ZZZ we never used Runway Y. So I was probably predisposed to use Runway X; and my expectation bias likely had me trusting the ATC upload as valid and legal for the runway as well.


Second narrative: Our flight plan showed Runway Y as our departure runway and the SID (Standard Instrument Departure). On taxi out we were assigned Runway X for departure and the SID. Bottom line none of us caught that Aircraft X Make/Model is not authorized to fly this SID.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported inadvertently using an unauthorized departure route for their aircraft type.