elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
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: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [ATC] had given us a clearance to fly 6 miles right of track.  As Pilot Monitoring (PM); I read back the clearance and entered the offset into the FMC.  The Captain; Pilot Flying (PF) selected HDG SEL and turned toward the offset route.  He had been done this on each of his legs before (and I sometimes do the same) so I saw nothing amiss.  The Captain had his hands on the yoke so I went back to my iPad that I had open to study since I had recurrent training soon. I was not monitoring the intercept.  I did not notice that the Captain never selected LNAV.  In the dark cockpit I did not notice the Captains head droop slightly.  When [ATC] queried us as to our course/offset; I noticed the Captain's head come up and saw that we were well past our six mile offset.  I pulled up the PROGRESS page and saw that we were nine miles farther right than cleared. The Captain had already begun a change of course back to our cleared offset. The Controllers only comment was that we were headed out of his sector.  I lost sight of my duties as PM when the Captain kept his hands on the yoke for the intercept.  While on autopilot; I had not witnessed him keeping his hands on the yoke before.  I also did not notice that he nodded off during the minute it took to offset those six miles.  It took a matter of reading one page to miss the actions that should have been occurring. In light of this error; I will have to be cognizant of where my attention is drawn.  There is no reason to pay attention to other; non-flight things when a change is occurring over such a short time span.  Also; PM duties include everything associated with the flight; the other pilot included.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer; the pilot monitoring; reported a track deviation when the pilot flying failed to select LNAV during an offset maneuver.  Fatigue was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on runway 25R.   (The aircraft that took off before us was an A320.) The takeoff roll was uneventful. After lift-off; at 34 feet RA [Radar Altimeter]; our aircraft made a sharp uncommanded roll to the left.  Max bank angle was 15 degrees.  Immediately recognizing that we were caught in wake turbulence; I make a very positive corrective action with the side stick to the right and was able to recover the aircraft before the wing tip struck the ground. The remainder of the climb-out and flight were uneventful.




Synopsis: An narrow body Airbus First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence very shortly after takeoff in trail of an A320 that resulted in a 'sharp' roll to the left.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on Ground Control and Clearance Delivery; I read clearances as normal and coordinated flow times. The facility both Tower and Radar were evacuated and went to ATC Zero for COVID-19 Cleaning. I instructed all IFR aircraft on frequency to contact ARTCC for IFR services and broadcast it on the ATIS frequency.  I did not specifically tell the IFR aircraft that had already been read clearances while the airport was controlled to hold for release. After the facility had been evacuated and the airport deemed uncontrolled; an IFR aircraft departed without coordinating with ARTCC. I would recommend a procedural amendment to the local contingency plan to broadcast that all IFR aircraft that had been issued IFR clearances to hold for release and contact ARTCC or FSS to coordinate their departures prior to taking off.


Second narrative: Received pre departure clearance from ZZZ clearance. Clearance informed us the Tower would be closing due to the Tower getting cleaned. Departures/Arrivals and Ground and Tower would be closed. They asked if we would be gone before then and we said probably not. They did not give us a hold for release instructions. They gave us Center frequency before the tower closed. We finished; pushed back and broadcast over CTAF we would be taxiing out. We attempted to contact Center several times before departing. We called in the blind on CTAF as we took the runway and departed. We contacted Center at around 1;500 feet and continued on our way. 10 minutes later Center informed me to contact Center via the telephone for a possible pilot deviation. It is unknown what the actual deviation may have been if there was a pilot deviation.


Synopsis: A Tower controller and flight crew reported the flight crew departed an airport with a closed tower without approval for release from the ARTCC. The Tower Controller reported they failed to advise the flight crew to hold for release after issuing their clearance prior to Tower closing.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During mid-descent; a strong; sweet; musky odor entered the cockpit. At first it was subtle but continued to get strong enough to make the FO (First Officer) slightly nauseated. We continued the descent and made a normal landing. Once we opened the cockpit door at the gate; the flight attendants commented on how strong the odor was coming out of the cockpit.Reporter suggested the cause was something in the packs?




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a fume event characterized as a 'sweet; musky odor' during descent. After gate arrival the cabin crew reported the odor was emanating from the cockpit.
Date: 202110
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Today while pushing Flight ZZZZ a Driver went behind the plane with a pushback tractor causing the immediate slam on brakes and stopping the aircraft push to avoid a major incident.




Synopsis: Tug operator reported that during push back another driver went behind the aircraft causing the tug operator to slam on the brakes.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Enroute to [destination] at FL 380; we were instructed by ATC to maintain an airspeed in order to cross a fix [on the airspace] boundary [at a specific time]. We programmed our FMS and the RTA (required time of arrival) airspeed it calculated was 0.778M. We then received a level 2 Generator 2 OFF alert. As we worked the problem; we encountered moderate to severe turbulence. This caused our airspeed to fluctuate and decrease to approximately 5 knots below the bottom foot. I immediately pushed he throttles to max thrust to accelerate the airspeed and we subsequently flew out of the turbulence. The airplane was in autopilot mode the whole time. The airplane momentarily gained 500-800 feet of altitude due to the updrafts; but we quickly and safely corrected to our assigned altitude after the brief turbulence encounter. We advised ATC of our situation and we took a heading to avoid weather build-ups which were in front of us. Upon landing; we wrote up the turbulence encounter in the logs.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported encountered severe turbulence causing the airspeed to fluctuate below the desired airspeed.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] weather radar failure with good test indications. [We were] unable to continue to destination due to weather enroute. Received clearance to [departure airport]; received clearance to dump fuel and declared emergency for anticipated overweight landing. Dumping began at FL290 and ended approaching [airport] at 6;000 FT. Approach and landing normal with 25 flaps. ARFF inspected brakes and gear before taxi to gate. ARFF escorted aircraft to gate and provided fans to minimize brake temperatures. Good coordination between Dispatch; ATC; ARFF and [airport].




Synopsis: Reporter stated a B767-300 had a loss of weather radar; and with weather forecast enroute was unable to continue. Emergency was declared for overweight landing and flight returned to departure airport.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRP.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRP
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y radar identified and vectored for TAZ RWY31L NGP. Aircraft Z radar identified and vectored ASR RWY31L NGP. Aircraft X released Predator 2 Departure. Aircraft X radar identified and altitude verified. Aircraft X observed at 3000. Aircraft X observed and verified descending. Aircraft X reports climbing back to 3000. Aircraft X instructed to expedite climb to 3000. Traffic issued to aircraft Z. Aircraft Z reports traffic in sight and aircraft X observed level at 3000.




Synopsis: CRP Controller observed an UAV aircraft that was assigned 3;000 feet descend into the vicinity of another aircraft under his control. Controller observes the UAV aircraft climb back up to 3;000. Traffic was issued to all concerned.
Date: 201409
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There apparently was some confusion when we were handed off to each controller as to what arrival we were supposed to be on. We were about 100 or so miles from CVE VOR. The controller changed our arrival into Houston to the RIICE SEVEN arrival. We were then handed off to another Fort Worth Center controller who told us to direct to REFYN; which was a intersection not on the arrival that we were assigned. We inquired and were then told to go direct to TORNN. The next center controller tried to give us another fix that was not on the assigned arrival. We had to again inform them of the assigned arrival that we were on was the RIICE SEVEN. We were then told to cross RIICE at 16000 feet and 280 knots; which we complied with. After passing RIICE; I then began to set up for the approach. While my captain was on the radios; Houston approach controller asked why were we were not descending via the arrival. We were not given any further descent clearance after RIICE. We were then cleared down to 6000 feet and then onto another approach controller who lead us onto the approach. I suggest that when on an assigned arrival; when we get handed off to another controller; state call sign; flight number; altitude; and assigned arrival.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of confusion of which arrival to fly into their destination because controllers changed it a few times.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While beginning the initial takeoff roll the FO pressed TOGA and we quickly realized the autothrottles had not been armed. We had a very quick discussion of whether or not the before takeoff checklist had been accomplished. Since I always arm the autothrottles during the before takeoff checklist and there was doubt on the checklist being accomplished I made the decision to reject the takeoff and taxi back. We were at taxi speed when this occurred and normal braking was used to exit the runway. We taxied clear; accomplished the checklist and continued the flight as normal. Contributing factors were thunderstorms in the area; a new ATIS and two runway crossings during the taxi.The decision to reject the takeoff and make sure the checklist was completed was the safest course of action. I usually check the autothrottles are armed when we receive the takeoff clearance; but didn't this time due to the distractions previously listed. One of the things that always gets covered during the brief these days is the lack of proficiency and the need to be extra vigilant. This event is a good example of that.


Second narrative: As we took to Runway XXR for takeoff in ZZZ; we noticed that the autothrottle was not armed.  We questioned whether we had completed the before takeoff checklist.  Since it was the safest thing to do; we decided to discontinue the takeoff to run the before takeoff check.  It was technically an aborted takeoff; but we never brought the power above 40 ish percent and we never got over a brisk taxi speed; maybe 20 knots.  We had to taxi up to Runway YYL to exit so we didn't apply any brakes.  We had several distractions.  We were watching thunderstorms on the radar.  We crossed two runways and we had a last minute ATIS.  Also with the reduced schedules; we don't fly as much any thus tend to carry a little more rust.  The antidote is to slow down and take your time.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported being distracted and not arming the autothrottle prior to departure resulting in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Narrative: Flight was operating in VMC conditions on a radar vector to join the final for a visual approach. The vector was a 310 degree heading that would intercept the final at approximately 12 miles from the runway. Another aircraft was on a visual to the parallel runway and it appeared that we would be joining our final basically alongside the other carrier aircraft instead of being slightly ahead or slightly behind. I am surprised that ATC didn't make any comment regarding the way we were going to join the final. We had the other carrier in sight the whole time. As we joined; we got a onetime climb RA annunciation. Before I could initiate the TCAS climb RA in landing configuration maneuver; the conflict cleared and we were above the TCAS pitch command region on the PFD. After we were clear; we were still in a position to continue the approach and land.No comment regarding the event was made by ATC. I did not query ATC about the way the sequence worked out. I should have reported the event to the Tower Controller; but did not. I did report the event to Dispatch.


Second narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach and instructed to fly heading 310 to intercept the localizer. As we were intercepting the localizer course; approximately 10 miles from the runway; with parallel traffic in sight; we got an RA for a maximum of two seconds; and as we were going to respond; the warning stopped. We continued a normal visual approach and landing. No further incident.


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew reported being vectored to intercept the final approach course localizer while another aircraft was established on the parallel runway final approach course. The aircraft on the intercept vector received a momentary TCAS/RA for the parallel traffic which they had in sight. They did not respond as it was one warning; then it stopped and they had the traffic in sight.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The pilot's pitot cover (upper) was placed in position without a streamer attached. It was not discovered still in place by both pilots during preflight walk around. I was Pilot Monitoring in the right seat. In the takeoff roll at approximately 80 knots I called out no airspeed on the left side. Pilot Ffying after processing my call out continued the takeoff rather than executing a high speed abort. Once airborne; we notified ATC that we had an instrumentation issue and we had to return to the airport. The landing was normal.Three main take-aways I got from this are never put a cover on that doesn't have a streamer attached. Be more aware and less complacent during the preflight walk around and finally; at 80 knots instead of calling out the problem; I should have simply called for an abort.


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


Synopsis: Corporate flight crew reported they departed with a Pitot Tube cover still attached.