elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While flying the ILS (Z or Y) 16R to VNY; we received a TA. We were already cleared for the approach in VFR conditions. We were told to maintain our current altitude by approach control when they realized there was a traffic conflict (We may have been with tower at this point; but I am fairly certain we were still with approach). There was VFR traffic at our altitude very close to FURRY on the approach. It appeared to be a single engine Cessna about 1 mile or so away from our position. I do not believe that the pilot was talking to anyone. This has happened to me on several other occasions going into VNY. For some reason; VFR traffic likes to fly around in that area. It is a bad area to fly without talking to anyone at that altitude with the traffic going into VNY. It is my opinion that the FAA needs to reevaluate this airspace as it could eventually lead to a more serious traffic conflict. It already causes conflict for the pilots and ATC when these events occur. It would be in everyone's best interest to make it mandatory for pilots flying in that area to talk to someone and file a flight plan. Possibly change the airspace to have the approach in protected (extend Class C or D) airspace. The current VFR chart shows a Class E extension out towards that area. Also; educating pilots in that area or making it mandatory for VFR pilots to take a training course on the Southern California area; as in the DC SFRA; before operating in this area.




Synopsis: A CL604 Captain reported an airborne conflict after receiving clearance for an ILS approach. The reporting party stated that the airspace is poorly designed to protect the ILS approach and should be reviewed.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: It was a normal flight climbing out of FL315 to assigned altitude of FL330. There were thunderstorms in the area we were deviating around. We had a large bump that sounded like a gear door closing hard. All instruments and gauges were normal. Just prior to leveling off at FL330 at climb power; we had continuous bumps and aircraft was shaking. Looking at the engine instruments the right engine was surging. N1 was in the red around 105% and ITT was in red around 1;000 degrees. I was pilot not flying and pulled right throttle back to around 60% (the engine smoothed out below 90%). We determined that it was a compressor stall and advised ATC we need to return to [departure airport] (about 60 miles behind us). We did not declare an emergency or shut the engine down; it was stable at 60% power and figured we might need it. The right engine was left at 60% at was in normal operating range (all green gauges). We ran a rough engine check list and followed the G200 Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM). We landed safely.




Synopsis: G200 Captain reported right engine compressor stall at top of climb; FL330. Reducing thrust to 90% smoothed the engine out; and they elected to return to departure airport.
Date: 201904
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other After Departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was not aware the part shipped to ZZZ was hazardous; due to the outside packaging not being labeled Hazmat and the bin location was not marked Hazmat. As of this date we continue to work with less manpower; poor training and a lack of communication; so therefore; mistakes can and will happen.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Personnel reported Hazmat shipment incorrectly transported due to no Hazmat required labeling.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Injector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We work fuel nozzles on #1 engine through multiple shifts and as the new ones were laid out on table I accidentally grabbed the wrong one.  We had a fellow employee filling out the tag so it could have been caught there but again was missed.  I then was put on fuel nozzles again the following Wednesday and I realized I forgot about enrichment nozzles last aircraft.  Did some research and realized I had messed up.  Called maintenance control and talked to a lead and aircraft is being pulled from service to be checked and repaired.


Second narrative: I was called to be informed that some fuel nozzles had been installed in the wrong positions. My involvement was torque and safety verification per task card.


Synopsis: Technicians reported that engine fuel nozzles of a B737-800 were installed in the wrong position and this was discovered post maintenance.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cruising at FL400 to SMF we were issued a clearance to descend to FL360 then cleared to descend via the SUUTR 2 RNAV Arrival into SMF. Approaching FL360 we were told to continue to FL280 and given a frequency change. Descending through FL360 I reported our altitude descending to FL280 and cleared to descend via the SUUTR 2 as we had understood the previous Controller. Immediately ATC clarified to maintain 280 which we did; until receiving clearance shortly after leveling to descend via the SUUTR 2. Noting that we were cleared to maintain 280; I told the FO (First Officer) that TRLOC at or above 290 was not a player. He concurred and deleted the restriction from the FMC. On descent into SMF; NorCal proceeded to ask us to call regarding a possible Pilot Deviation.Only thing I can suggest is if ATC issues a clearance that seems to be missing something; ask. In hindsight it seemed odd that we would be given a new descend to altitude without being told to maintain or continue descend via. On check-in this was clarified immediately by ATC and I honestly don't know what else could have been done. There was no altitude deviation; separation problems or anything else. Merely communicating what we had understood our clearance to be and being corrected by ATC was (I think) an appropriate action. Obviously; in this increasingly complicated environment we work in clarification at the earliest point of question would be in order. If a clearance seems to be open ended or missing an element; inquire.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported misunderstanding an ATC clearance on arrival into SMF.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHF.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D PHF
ATC / advisory: Tower PHF
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were in the landing flare for Runway 25 at PHF when I heard the Tower announce a Citation was 'Cleared for Takeoff' on Runway 20.  Knowing that these runways intersect near the rollout end of the runways; I was immediately alarmed.  I thought at first it was an error.  As the wheels touched down I heard the Citation crew accept the clearance.  This prompted me to go to max braking in order to remain short of the intersection of the runways. I stopped on the runway; and even before the departing aircraft had cleared through I was told Tower needed me to keep it rolling!  I immediately inquired if this was allowed; and was told they had 'a reasonable expectation of separation.'I feel this is unsafe.  How can they reasonably expect all situations that may occur?  What if that aircraft blows a tire and aborts right into the intersection?  What happens if I go around as he's departing towards me?  How is Tower able to assess all this risk?  Why not wait until one aircraft lands and clears the intersection?  I called the Tower and they claimed they can issue this clearance because they could: 'reasonably expect separation;' and were totally nonchalant to my concerns.  Had this clearance been issued even moments earlier I would have probably gone around.  Contributing to this confusion is the fact that aircraft landing on 25 cannot see the aircraft on 20 and is unaware of his exact location.There is a threat of a potential collision if many unforseen things were to go wrong.  I was confused as to whether we were given a land and hold short clearance (which we were not).




Synopsis: The Captain of an air carrier aircraft touching down on Runway 25 at PHF was alarmed and initiated max braking after hearing Tower clear a Citation for takeoff on Runway 20 which intersects with 25 at the rollout end.  There had been no notification of authorized LAHSO being in effect.  Tower advised they had cleared the other aircraft based on 'reasonable expectation of separation' criteria.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Airplane had been pulling to the left during takeoffs. I got a CFI as well as A&P to go do a fast taxi with me to trouble shoot. During taxi the left landing gear sheared causing plane to go into drainage ditch and sustain damage to gear leg; propellor and both wings.




Synopsis: Pilot reported left main landing gear sheared off during a high speed taxi test; causing aircraft to veer into a drainage ditch; causing significant damage.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: While on the RODIO2 RNAV Arrival into San Antonio (KSAT); the ATIS informed us Runway 4 was in use. The Pilot Flying entered the Runway and ILS 04 in the FMS while I checked the chart.  While comparing the waypoints he mentioned that the FMS had us going over TROOP and CRISS intersections. At first glance I thought runway 4 would take us over the southern arrival gate using POYIG and BERNE; then saw the note at CRISS that listed Runways 4; 12R; 30L so I agreed we would be using CRISS.  Shortly; the approach controller asked if we were on the RWY 4 arrival course and I confirmed we were and expecting RWY 4. He came back in a minute and gave us a heading.  I thought that might mean we were on the wrong one so I checked again and noticed that the note at CRISS stated 'LANDING OTHER THAN SAN ANTONIO INT'L RWYS 4; 12R; 30L'. I asked if we should rejoin and we were cleared to.Then we had to resolve why the FMS had kept the wrong transition points. We don't know exactly but I found that to get the correct ones I not only had to enter the RWY and APPROACH but if I selected the STAR that it changed the waypoints to the correct transition.  It is now my conclusion that when the flight plan was filed; the RODIO2 was filed without a runway; but the CRISS arrival transition was in the flight plan. We were cleared as filed so these remained in the flight plan as it was loaded in the FMS.  The waypoints were correct but the RODIO2 was not in the FMS as a STAR; merely as waypoints that were chosen from the flight planning software for filing.My mistake was obvious (misreading the note) but aggravated and allowed by the FMS issue which caused me to believe my mistake.  I would think that avoiding words like 'OTHER THAN' would avoid missing this negative reference to the runways that are NOT intended.




Synopsis: A flight crew discovered that their FMS had kept the wrong transition points for their arrival runway. The arrival STAR was not loaded in the FMS. A confusing note over an expected transition point added to the confusion.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During boarding process and immediately after turning on APU; F/A (Flight Attendant) informed us of toxic fumes in cabin. We called ZZZ Maintenance who assisted us. I walked into cabin and smelled the odor myself. Crew started experiencing headaches and scratchy throat. We then wrote up the discrepancy in the logbook causing maintenance to put the aircraft out of service. We continued on to our destination with another aircraft.Watching a video about smoke/fume events was very helpful. The odor resembled bleach and laundry detergent.


Second narrative: While boarding and after starting APU; cabin crew advised the Captain and I that there was an odor of 'dirty laundry' in the cabin. We agreed that this was a quite common odor just after APU was started from residual moisture in the air cycle machine. The Captain went back to the cabin to inspect the unknown odor while I advised Maintenance as well to come and ascertain what the odor may have been. In the flight deck there was no odor that I noticed out of the ordinary but the Captain and Maintenance couldn't isolate the source of the odor so in the interest of safety we promptly halted boarding and deplaned all the passengers and our crew was assigned a new aircraft to complete the flight to ZZZ1. I wasn't aware of anyone being incapacitated or injured during this event. I monitored the situation and assisted the Captain as necessary and concurred that we should not accept the aircraft in the interest of safety and stop boarding and deplane promptly then get passengers transferred to our next aircraft which we did.Nothing in particular [to suggest]; I think our crew communicated effectively and came to a conclusion to safety stop boarding and deplane promptly. Odors can be difficult to detect or figure out what they are but to take the action we did was the correct one and deplaning and not continuing on with the unknown odor.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported a fume event during boarding. Maintenance investigated and placed the aircraft out of service. Flight continued after aircraft swap.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was enroute from ZZZ1 to ZZZ and the duty runway was XX. There was a commuter jet on final to XX which I had in sight. Tower clearance received 'clear to land runway XY; remain north of runway XX'. I acknowledged the clearance and lined up for Runway XY with a deceleration and descent. My plan was to decelerate and descend to Runway XY to time it where I would receive clearance to continue down Runway XY (south of Runway XX and to the Company ramp) after the landing jet traffic had passed me. It being night time; Tower felt as if I was getting too close to Runway XY/XX intersection so Tower transmitted '[Call sign] Stop'. I acknowledged the order; my airspeed was a too fast to stop safely so I opted to turn away (wave off) from the runway to the north. Shortly thereafter Tower stated to make a 180; then proceeded to clear me to the ramp without further incident.With it being night time; with opposing runway traffic landing I should have just opted to either 1) request a downwind for Runway XX and then land behind the jet traffic or 2) set the aircraft down on Runway XY and waited for the jet to pass and receive a new clearance from tower to proceed down Runway XY.




Synopsis: Helicopter Pilot reported that while inbound for landing they did not stop the aircraft as directed by ATC; resulting in an airborne conflict with a jet landing on another runway.