elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared to Line Up and Wait; with an advisory of crossing traffic down field. As we aligned with the runway centerline Tower transmitted '[Callsign] (unintelligible; unintelligible; unintelligible)'; but we couldn't hear whatever it was they were trying to say to someone; because the RAAS was shouting at us. We asked for a repeat; and found out that Tower had been; in fact; attempting to clear us for takeoff. It sure would have been nice to have been able to hear that. The RAAS caused this loss of communications during a most critical phase of flight - just like it always does.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain experiences a RAAS alert after being cleared to line up and wait; which completely blocks the next transmission from the Tower.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At about two hours into our three-hour flight; the First Officer needed to leave the cockpit to use the lavatory. I took my oxygen mask out the holder; cleaned it; and noticed that there seemed to be a small leak in one of the inflatable straps. A logbook entry was made to replace the mask. My concern is how often these masks are checked out of the aircraft container by Maintenance. I believe these masks should be fully checked (out of the container) each day.




Synopsis: When the First Officer left the cockpit for a break a B-737NG Captain donned his O2 mask and discovered a leak in the self inflating harness. The Captain expressed concern as to the frequency of operational inspection of the masks.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon landing 18C at CLT; Tower instructed us to exit E5; the next high speed on the right. The signage at the E5 intersection confused both the copilot and myself (pilot). The copilot who had the taxi diagram available directed me to turn a hard left which would have put us on E6 not E5. I accepted the copilot's direction given the signage at this intersection seemed to support his direction to make a hard left to remain on E5. However; in hindsight this did not make sense that we would be instructed to take the next high speed and it involve a greater than 180 degree left turn. The Tower corrected us in time to correct and enter E5. We continued the taxi to the FBO without incident. The signage at this intersection was confusing enough at night to cause two pilots to make this mistake. Possibly improvements could be made at this intersection to clarify directions.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported signage at E5 intersection in CLT is confusing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A380
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working the Local Assist position; I began coordinating with the Departure Radar Controller about the release of aircraft from a satellite airport. Once I returned to monitoring the local frequency; I heard the end of a read back from Aircraft X; and all I heard was him saying his call sign. As I looked out the window; I saw Aircraft X crossing the hold bars at Runway 24L to take the runway for departure. I assumed the Local 2 Controller has issued instructions to line up and wait (LUAW); as there were 3 aircraft holding in between Runway 24L and Runway 24R. Our SOP states that no aircraft can be holding in between the runways when an A380 is departing. A moment later; I noticed Aircraft X was beginning takeoff roll; while the 3 aircraft were still holding in between.Because I was offline coordinating; I did not notice that the Local Controller had issued a takeoff clearance; rather than LUAW. Otherwise I may have been able to prevent it. The A388 departed without incident.The fact that there can be no aircraft holding in between when an A380 is departing is egregious. Holding aircraft in between while an ADG-VI (Aircraft Design Group VI) [Includes B747-8 and A380] departs is a practice that we did multiple times per day for years without incident. Then one day; due to some administrative change in paperwork; we are no longer allowed to do it.We have attempted to mitigate this by asking the airport to move the hold bars on certain taxiways in between runway 24L and 24R. We have been met with resistance from the airport citing cost and time measures.




Synopsis: LAX Tower Controller reported an A380 departed the left runway while multiple aircraft were holding between left and right runways.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Reporter organization: Other Flight School
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After announcing the intent to taxi from south hangers to the approach end of RWY 13 (active RWY -North side of field) we passed a Beechcraft Baron taxing the opposite direction; we again announced our intentions for RWY 13. No announcement from the Baron. We taxied to runway; did our flight brief; completed our run-up and announced that we were entering RWY 13 for departure and closed traffic. We proceed to enter; looked down RWY 13 waited a moment then proceed to takeoff from RWY 13. As we were approx 400 feet I caught a glimpse of the Baron rolling under us on the intersecting runway. There was not one word from the Baron during this entire process. It is impossible to see the approach end of either runway from the other. This is an additional reason why we make these positions and state our intention calls on the radio. I later reviewed the ATC tapes to hear the Baron obtain his clearance but not once did he announce his movement over the CTAF.




Synopsis: PA18 pilot reports taxi out to Runway 13 using CTAF radio procedures and notes a BE58 going the other way without communicating. The takeoff is announced on Runway 13 and the takeoff initiated. Once airborne the BE58 is sighted below departing on the intersecting runway.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ2
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ1
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Glider
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing ZZZ. I was in radar contact with ZZZ approach control and provided with flight following to ZZZ1. Approximately 4.5nm NE of ZZZ1 I reported the field in site and radar services were terminated. Upon frequency change I obtained the current AWOS at ZZZ1. While tuning the ZZZ1 CTAF I noticed a strong burning odor inside the cabin which; at the time; was believed to be electrical. I immediately began my crosscheck and entered a stabilized descent out of 1;700 MSL direct ZZZ1. During the descent; I began troubleshooting the issue and identified that the alternator circuit breaker had tripped. To confirm that it was not a false trip I attempted to reset the circuit breaker to no avail. Upon entering the 45 degree midfield left downwind for Runway XX at ZZZ1; it seemed that the burning odor was becoming more prominent. Believing that the aircraft was at great risk of catching fire I retrieved the fire extinguisher and [advised ATC] and stated my intentions over ZZZ1 CTAF. After completing my transmission; I immediately turned off the master battery switch and began preparing for a landing. Upon entering the traffic pattern until short final I continued to scan for traffic and did not observe anyone on the base leg; final leg; or on the runway. Throughout; I continued to look for visible signs of fire both inside/outside the aircraft. Upon a successful landing on Runway XX at ZZZ1; I expedited my ground roll to the taxiway where I immediately shut down the engine. I stopped on the east side of the taxiway at which time I turned the fuel select valve to the off position and egressed the aircraft. I immediately inspected the aircraft for obvious signs of an active fire. Upon further inspection; I identified electrical burns around the hot terminal of the alternator. The 6-gauge alternator wire was found to be completely burned through and held to the terminal solely by the terminal grommet.




Synopsis: Pilot flying C-182 aircraft reported an electrical burning odor during descent to landing. After landing inspection revealed electrical burn marks around hot terminal of alternator.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Lighter-Than-Air
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After a routine flight we began our descent into a large desert area for our landing approach. Felt wind increase as we approached surface. Impacted surface in a 10 to 15 mph wind; tipping balloon on its side and dragged a short distance when we rebounded back into the air. Shortly touching down again and dragging to a stop. Passengers had received some injuries; so applied field first aid. Clean and covered wound on [passenger 1's] forehead and [passenger 2's] knee. Passenger [3] complained of a sore left shoulder. I took all passengers to hospital for checkup.




Synopsis: Balloon pilot reported loss of control while landing in gusty wind conditions that led to minor passenger injuries.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the RNAV (RNP) Runway 31 approach with clearance for that approach when a [warbird] came barreling up in front of us. I saw it on the TCAS turn from white to amber; and then red. At the time; we were IFR; just about to break out into VMC conditions. A minute or two earlier the Tower reported a [warbird] flying in the area; and we got the impression that the Controller personally knew the pilot of the [warbird]. We were on the approach; exactly where we were supposed to be; when the RA happened. I executed a climbing RA (per guidance); and within maybe 40 seconds we got a 'clear of conflict' and were able to continue the approach to an uneventful landing. I never saw the plane; but I have no doubt that it our clearance was not very far apart - probably less than 500 feet. We reported the incident to the Tower; and they in turn said they would report it through their channels.The [warbird] pilot needs to understand that you cannot fly into the approach end of a runway; especially in marginal to IMC conditions.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported a NMAC with a warbird while on final approach.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given clearance to descend via the RNAV arrival. The Captain was flying. We confirmed descent altitudes and speeds on the arrival. Further down on the descent; we were told to contact Approach. Upon contact; I asked ATC if we could get relief from the speed constraints in an effort to get to [destination] faster. ATC approved our request. In the descent [it] was noticed [that] in all probability [we would] not make our next restriction accurately. So; the Captain adjusted altitude to make the restriction. He then re-engaged the vertical profile and we believed everything was then set to descend via the altitude restrictions. We failed to notice that the airplane had fallen out of Managed Descent and entered Vertical Speed. [When] we passed an intersection [with] cross between 15;000 FT and 16;000 FT [restriction] at 14;000 FT; the Captain pushed Vertical Speed Zero to reconnect with the vertical profile. ATC never said anything to us. There was no broken separation between aircraft and the flight was completed without further incident.The event occurred because the Captain and I did not notice the aircraft entering Vertical Speed and then further did not monitor the descent to see that we would cross at the predetermined altitude restrictions. This all happened because after the Captain re-engaged Managed Descent; we both were involved in a discussion which diverted us from our duties.Keep the conversation to a minimum while descending via and monitor what the airplane is doing at any given time to make sure it will cross an altitude restriction as it is supposed to.




Synopsis: A321 flight crew missed a crossing restriction while descending via an RNAV arrival and attributed the error to a cockpit discussion which distracted them from monitoring the automation.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll out
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxi out; takeoff; and departure were normal. Upon landing; we noticed unusual vibration as the aircraft decelerated through 100 KTS. Captain exited at high speed Taxiway H1. Once at taxi speed; vibration/roughness was still present. At this time; we all deduced we had a possible tire problem with right main gear. The gate was located in very close proximity to the runway exit; so we continued taxi to the gate. Upon postflight inspection; we discovered the front two tires on right main mount had shredded; and the rear two were flat. The only anomaly experienced in-flight was an intermittent ANTISKID advisory message. In the vicinity of 050W; just as we were entering the NAT Track system; the ANTISKID light illuminated twice for approximately 2-3 seconds; then extinguished. We read through the QRH procedure; which stated to avoid using autobrakes; however the light never illuminated for the remainder of the flight. On approach; Captain wisely opted to not use autobrakes; just in case there was an actual problem with the antiskid system. After gate arrival; the flight crew observed the damage. Captain then requested a runway FOD check; and we entered the damage in the logbook.


Second narrative: I was the Relief Pilot on this flight which took off and landed 8 hours 35 minutes later. Flight was uneventful until aircraft rollout which upon slowing below 100 KTS the aircraft appeared or felt as though we were on a rough runway. After exiting the runway; the only indication I had from the observer's seat was a slight rumble or vibration from what appeared to be the right side of the aircraft. Taxi to gate was very short (1 minute or maximum 2). After gate arrival; ground crew alerted us to the main gear tire failure which had occurred.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reports right main gear tire failures after landing. The only indication in flight had been a momentary anti-skid advisory message and the crew elected not to use auto brakes during the landing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower 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: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain and I operated flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 in a Cessna C208. We had a normal pre-flight; cockpit preparation; engine start; taxi; and takeoff. During climb out ZZZ Tower notified us that we had an object hanging from the aircraft; which we did not know. Captain elected to return to ZZZ.After we landed we returned to the gate; we did an outside visual inspection; and we realized the Ground Agent did not remove the tail stand. The Company's policy and procedures requires the Ground Agent/Marshaller to remove the tail stand immediately before engine start. Captain then contacted Operations Control and Line Maintenance to inform them of the situation. He then made an aircraft logbook entry. Mechanics inspected the aircraft; they found no damage; they signed off the logbook; and the aircraft was returned to service.[Company]'s operating manual currently does not provide a procedure for the cockpit crew to verify whether or not the tail stand has been removed during operations involving gate agents. Therefore; I recommend one of two procedures be incorporated. We should have either two-way headset or hand signal communication between the Captain and the Ground Agent. This communication should inform the pilots the tail stand has been removed after the entry door is closed prior to engine start. Or; after the passengers and cargo are loaded; and the aircraft is ready for engine start; the Captain or his/her designee must exit the aircraft; inspect the tail section; and ensure the tail stand is removed.Under current [Company] procedure there is no way for the pilots to know whether or not the gate agent has removed the tail stand. Therefore; my recommendation will preclude this type of an event from happening in the future; it will reduce the risk of 'Things Falling Off Of Aircraft;' and improve safety.


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


Synopsis: C208 flight crew reported that ground handlers failed to remove tail stand from aircraft; resulting in an air turnback.