elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness

Narrative: Aircraft X was put in holding at JLI for sequencing to LAX. I gave them holding as published. The published holding is left turns and he made right. I was told to give them one turn. So after make half of the holding pattern I gave Aircraft X a right turn direct VISTA and maintain 28000 feet which they read back. I had him stopped them at 28000 feet because Aircraft Y was climbing on the SID out of SAN to 27000 feet. I then assigned Aircraft X 250 knots. They read that back and did say knots and not just 2-5-0. A moment later I saw Aircraft X descending. I told them to stop their descent at 25000 feet. They didn't say anything. I stopped Aircraft Y at 24000 feet which he was at 23800 feet at the time and said they would go back down. I went back and stopped Aircraft X at 25000 feet again. I turned Aircraft Y 10 left and expedite his turn. I turned Aircraft X to a heading of 160 which I had to say twice. I called traffic to Aircraft X. No response. I called traffic to Aircraft Y and he said traffic in sight. I went back and called traffic to Aircraft X again. After they were pulled apart I gave Aircraft X direct VISTA again and down to 24000 feet. I then gave him the brasher warning and had given him the phone number 3 times. Almost every clearance I gave to Aircraft X I had to say twice. [Suggest] maybe restate the altitude when I issued the speed. But I did make sure I heard the word knots and not just 2-5-0. So I don't know. Maybe extra separation when obviously the pilot doesn't want to listen.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller reported a pilot deviation descending from an assigned altitude; which resulted in being in conflict with climbing traffic.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon initial climbout; the motor began to shudder violently and dropped to 1000 RPM at full throttle. I immediately pitched for VG (Best Glide Speed) advised ATC and turned back to the airport for Runway XX. ZZZ Tower cleared me to land Runway XX and made it the runway safely.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a loss of engine power during climbout that resulted in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Contacted by Supervisor
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I received notice that during a scheduled Routine Inspection; the #1 Slat Can had sustained damage on a B737-300 aircraft. The #1 Slat was replaced on a C-Check by me as evidenced on Non-Routine Card. I did have assistance; however; I don't recall who specifically that person(s) was. Although it has been over nine months since I replaced that slat; I am confident that the subject [Slat track] downstop was installed at that time in accordance with the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). In addition; this task is a Required Inspection Item (RII) and was identified and inspected as such. With over 24-years as licensed Aircraft Maintenance technician (AMT); I have performed numerous slat replacements and know how critical it is to ensure that no debris is allowed to enter the Slat Can. This aircraft has been through numerous Maintenance Visits since that C-Check to include a [Phased] Heavy Maintenance Visit. [I was] on duty twenty-two hours.




Synopsis: An experienced Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) was informed that a # 1 Slat Can compartment was found damaged on a B737-300 aircraft after he had replaced the slat. The aft downstop on one of the slat's main track arm's had fallen into the compartment.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were taxiing (at night) from the D-8 to Runway 24L at E-8. I reviewed the taxi plan on the Jepps chart with my FO since I had not been back to LAX since the runway 24L construction project began. I taxied slowly but still found it to be extremely difficult to get to 24L at E-8 from this direction due to poor taxiway line markings and confusing taxi lights at night. This is a serious night hazard that deserves immediate attention so we don't damage an aircraft; have an inadvertent taxiway excursion or (worse) a runway incursion. Also; I believe it would help if the Jepps 10-7 page had an enlarged diagram showing this specific taxi area in better detail.




Synopsis: A Captain taxiing at night to LAX Runway 24L via Taxiway D-8; E-8 became confused because the signage and lighting were reportedly not clear.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach into ZZZ Runway XXR; the Captain called for Flaps 1. The slats extended as expected. Shortly thereafter Captain called for Flaps 2. An ECAM message appeared and flaps had not moved at all. We followed ECAM procedures to no avail. Several miles out; we went around to diagnose the problem with the aircraft and requested priority handling. We ran the ECAM [procedure] and landing data as required then flew a zero-flap approach to an uneventful landing and roll out. The Captain notified Operations and filled out the logbook as required. Two weeks later I received a call from the gatekeeper looking for information on the event. I turns out Maintenance said they could not find a problem and signed off the logbook. The next day the following crew had the same issue flying into ZZZ1 according to the gatekeeper.




Synopsis: An air carrier First Officer reported the flaps did not extend during final approach and a zero flaps landing was performed.
Date: 201503
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Cleared to descend via SERFR1 STAR; 'West transition.' Queried ATC as to whether they meant the 'WESLA' transition and they responded affirmatively. Frequency change and next Controller asked where we were going. We responded we were descending VIA the WESLA transition. ATC cleared us direct MENLO for 28L. They had wanted us to descend for landing west; not WESLA transition.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew and ATC clearance confusion associated with the West transition versus the WESLA fix on the East transition of the SFO SERFR1 STAR.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Verifying the altitudes on the CDU for the ANJLL 4 arrival; we noticed the CDU display for the GLSN intersection was FL280. The ANJLL4 RNAV arrival chart shows a speed restriction of 280 kts. and an altitude restriction block of below FL300 and above FL240.Our altitude was above FL 300 when we discovered this. Please see attached photos.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported that the CDU indicated different altitude restriction than the arrival chart; resulting in a crossing restriction error.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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 Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initial altitude was 1;500 FT. Aircraft climbed to 2;000 FT before being brought back to 1;500 FT and rejoining the departure. Pilot failed to properly understand SID and set proper altitude due to not following published procedure. Cockpit procedures were not followed as copilot failed to acknowledge proper altitude and did not call out prior to reaching assigned altitude. Factors causing incident included crew fatigue due to long delay departing earlier in the evening.




Synopsis: A CE560XL departed on the TEB RUUDY 4 SID and failed to level at 1;500 FT because of confusion; fatigue and the First Officer not calling the aircraft approaching the level altitude.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Purpose of the flight was to accomplish the flight portion for the PF (Pilot Flying) who is type rated in the aircraft but not current. Aircraft was loaded with approximately 4;600 lbs of fuel and 2 pilots bringing the takeoff weight to 15;700 lbs; which happens to be the maximum landing weight for the aircraft. First takeoff and landing from Runway 27 was accomplished normally with a long landing roll and minimal braking to help keep the brakes cool. After taxi back to the runway a second takeoff was made and the landing gear was kept down during flight to aid in keeping the brakes cool. The second landing was made similar to the first using normal braking and taxi back to the runway for the third and final takeoff. At the departure end of the runway we delayed our takeoff for another aircraft landing. After the landing aircraft cleared the runway the Tower issued us a takeoff clearance and we began a normal takeoff. Shortly after application of takeoff power we noticed a noise/feeling consistent with a tire failure coming from the right main gear and the takeoff was aborted. We maintained directional control of the aircraft and exited the runway at Taxiway B5. Upon clearing the runway shutdown procedures were started and the pilot flying exited the aircraft to look at the main gear. The PF advised me the right brake was smoking and I immediately advised the Tower to roll the fire trucks to our position. Fire trucks came and used water to cool the brakes and extinguished a fire which was contained to the right landing gear brake/wheel area. Maintenance came to the aircraft and replaced both main tires and the aircraft was towed back to the hangar.




Synopsis: Beechjet 400 instructor pilot reported a brake fire after conducting several touch and go landings at a high gross weight.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HZL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: CTAF HZL
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were entering the airport area at the airport where parachute jumping actives were going on. There were planes with jumpers getting ready to jump and Wilkes-Barre approach advised them to hold off on allowing the jumpers to jump and that we were inbound from the south an IFR flight plan. After switching to CTAF we announced our intention to cross midfield from the south to enter the published right downwind for runway 28. We encountered jumpers descending from the north thru the right hand traffic pattern and sharply turned back to the south to avoid hitting any of the jumpers. We [neither] heard nor were we made aware that any jumpers had been released and would be descending down to the airport or we would have allowed them time to reach the ground and be out of the way before entering the pattern. After landing and talking with the jumpers there were 2 planes with jumpers; [one] at 9;500 feet and another at 11;500 feet. Between switching from Wilkes-Barre approach and the local CTAF the lower plane released its jumpers and we didn't hear that announcement on the local CTAF I have flown into many airports with parachute jumpers in the area and none of the jumps interfered or descended thru the traffic pattern being used at that airport.




Synopsis: CE560XL Captain reported he took evasive action to avoid jumpers who were released without proper notice in the area of HZL.
Date: 201401
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Pre-Arrival
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This incident was reported to me as a Manager by a Service provider that is unable to file a safety report [using our Air Carrier's Safety Form]. The details are quoted as follows. Leaking Dangerous Goods (DG):Please check this Bulletin that originated in ZZZZ and going to ZZZZ1 via ZZZ. It came to my knowledge only a few hours ago that this is a leaking DG and was set up and sent on a flight to ZZZZ1. I do not know when and where the leak started; but it was in ZZZ for several days and the Customer was following it up at ZZZ. The warehouse Manager gave the 'go' signal to send it to its final destination by just wrapping the freight in Quick Packaging (QPK) plastic bag. I am a DG Specialist in ZZZ and I believe that the procedure for handling a damaged DG was not followed for this freight. If I knew earlier that this was a leaking DG; I would have voiced out my objection in sending this freight to its final destination and have the Shipper's Representative in ZZZ to come and pick up the freight in our station.




Synopsis: A Dangerous Goods (DG) Specialist reports he was informed about a damaged freight that had been improperly shipped from their Station; leaking hazardous fluid on an A320 flight.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: New owner; [taking a] training flight for make and model. Normal approach to landing. Normal wheel landing. Upon slowing [the] aircraft and setting the tail-wheel down; aircraft drifted off side of runway and eventually ground looped.




Synopsis: Pilot Flying reported a runway excursion due to a loss of control on landing during a training flight.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-25 Pawnee
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was towing a glider at 3;000 feet when the Piper Pawnee I was flying ran out of fuel. The standard practice at our glider field is that when a tow pilot finishes the day; the aircraft is refueled before it is returned to the hangar. The Pawnee has a plexiglass sight gauge that had become yellowed and was difficult to see the float fuel indicator. Unknown to me; the fuel tank at the field was empty at the end of the previous flights; and the plane was not refueled. I towed a glider to an altitude of 3;000 feet and the engine quit. The glider released and I circled the field and made an uneventful landing.Our practice at the field is to make ten tows and then get fuel. I did not visually inspect the sight gauge and there was not a note on the aircraft that it was not refueled after the last flight of the previous session. I did an inadequate preflight and was fortunate to have a successful conclusion of the flight. The fuel sight gauge has been replaced and it has been emphasized to all pilots to do a thorough preflight and if a pilot discovers anything out of the ordinary; leave a note in the aircraft.




Synopsis: PA25 pilot reported landing safely after running out of fuel after releasing a glider.