elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored during the climb with a couple of different assigned headings. We were advised by ATC that we would be cleared to our destination in approximately 5 minutes. We were then cleared to our destination. I entered a direct in the GPS and selected NAV Mode. We turned towards our destination; but were not going direct to it. The Controller asked us if we were going direct to our destination right after we discovered we were not. We were already in a turn to the left heading direct to the destination. There were no conflicts or other aircraft that showed up on our TCAS. The problem arose as my normal co-pilot was out sick in quarantine for potential Coronavirus and I had an inexperienced co-pilot. In addition to flying the aircraft; I was monitoring the new co-pilot as he was unsure of himself in this aircraft. We completed a 20 degree turn; so we were flying direct to our destination. The co-pilot's inexperience contributed to this event. Also contributing to the event was a 125 knot crosswind that made the track less intuitive.




Synopsis: Pilot reported experiencing a track/heading deviation. Pilot stated the deviation occurred in part due to flying with an inexperienced co-pilot.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had Pilot Monitoring (PM) duties. Captain loaded arrival and runway per the release on the ground. I got the weather. Captain asks me to become Pilot Flying (PF) for briefs and FMS changes. Just as he is changing the FMS; we get a descend via clearance on the arrival. Captain (PM now) continues to change FMS. Current FMS routing and fix altitudes get dropped from FMS. ATC queries us on if we are going to make crossings and gives us a frequency change. Captain is busy trying to correct the FMS issue. I check in on new frequency and ask for a new descent clearance. We get a new clearance to descend to cross 10000 feet at ZZZZZ Intersection then descend via the rest of the arrival. Once the FMS route was fixed; we were able to descend and land per ATC clearances. We believe we had possible altitude misses at several fixes. [It was a] short flight with multiple changes to expected routing and time compression was a contributing factor. Main issue was the FMS route programming was accidentally dropped. This mistake happened at the worst time and didn't allow me (PF at the time) to have situational awareness of the proper route fixes and altitudes to make the required altitude crossings or allow the aircraft to be automated in VNAV path descent. We could have briefed the arrival on the ground but it would have helped only marginally due to runway change in flight that included abbreviated routing. Proper use of FMS change would have prevented the issue. I allowed too much time to go by once the FMS route was dropped. I should have quickly recognized that the FMS route fix and reload may not be fast enough for us to make the needed fixes. I should have immediately called ATC to request a new decent clearance.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported that several crossing restrictions may have been missed on an arrival due to difficulties reprogramming the FMS.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Pit Compartment
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Mechanic at our departure airport delivered a paper copy of the MEL along with a diagram of which section of the cargo compartment that was inop.  He said we could use CP4 for cargo but the damaged section could not be used.  The First Officer and I along with the Mechanic discussed the MEL 25.50-03 and we continued on our way.  We arrived at our destination and the confusion began regarding the MEL because cargo was in CP4 but not in the inop section.  We verified this with a Station Ramp Agent.  I called and spoke to Dispatch and Maintenance Control as we began to load the aircraft for our next flight.  Maintenance Control said the MEL restricts us from using CP4 (rear cargo compartment) all together.  The bags for our next flight were loaded into CP1 and we continued on our way.I believe the MEL wording should be changed to read:  The rear or front cargo compartment must not be used for any luggage.  Our load sheet is broken down into zones and the MEL refers to cargo compartments. We were under the assumption that cargo could be in section CP4 but not CP3.  Our cargo load sheet was accurate and listed all cargo in CP4 and CP3 (inop section) was empty.




Synopsis: An A320 had a MEL referencing CP3 cargo compartment damage; but there was confusion over whether cargo could be loaded in CP4 and only the damaged area excluded. It was determined the MEL restricted any cargo carriage in that compartment.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In this event we had been cleared for the LAX ILS 24R. When we turned onto the localizer we had adequate separation from the aircraft in front of us. At some point that separation was lost. At about 2300 feet MSL; and near the final approach fix; Tower asked us if we had visual contact with the traffic in front of us and told us to slow to approach speed. We did not as the traffic appeared to go into a scattered cloud layer. I reported that; and right away Tower came back and told us to cancel approach clearance and maintain 2000.At this point in the approach; we were both unsure if they wanted to continue the approach; or execute a go around. We ended up doing a sort of 'half go around.'That left the airplane in a confused state of speed; automation and control. Shortly thereafter Tower finally officially gave us a go around instruction.At this point we were trying to get the airplane into a stable state and that's when the RA happened. The autopilot was disconnected. The RA instruction was to monitor vertical speed. By this time we were both pretty far behind the airplane with no automation and ended up climbing into the RA; maybe 100 feet. We had the traffic in sight for the duration of the event.The RA was resolved; and we got the aircraft into a desired configuration and went on to land without incident. Most of us; myself included; could probably be better at briefing missed approach procedures and develop possible plans for a 'soft go around.'Contributing factors were the ambiguous or not expected instructions from ATC and task saturation as a result. Also; we were pretty worn out after a day in and out of [another airport] with several lengthy delays.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported attempting to reconfigure their aircraft after receiving and ATC directed go-around; initially climbed into a 'monitor vertical speed' TCAS Resolution Advisory.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on our way to hangar to pickup a plane; driving on Taxi way 1 driving empty tug with instruction clear all the way to the hangar via Zulu X; as we were approaching Yankee Y intersection; we heard a tower giving instruction to a plane just landed on runways XYC-YXC to take Yankee Z; Yankee short of taxiway Alpha; but that corporate jet enter on Yankee Y and took Zulu; I had to immediately take sharp right turn to a grass area to clear the taxiway Zulu to avoid a collusion; FAA was reported and was asked if we are OK and so we continue on Zulu to the hangar.




Synopsis: Tug driver reported that while they were driving on a taxiway; an aircraft taxied onto the same taxiway caused the tug driver to take evasive action by driving onto the grass area.
Date: 201207
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received a cabin altitude warning at cruise approximately 1 hour 20 minutes into flight. [Immediate action steps] were completed and complied with QRH procedures regaining control of the cabin using manual control. Jumpseater was a qualified crewmember and properly donned his mask and responded to cockpit request for communication check.  The First Officer did an excellent job running the checklist and manually controlling the cabin altitude. The rest of the flight was uneventful.I will say that a change in that checklist is in order. After the [immediate action steps] were complete; the crew should have been able to cycle through manual; back to automatic to attempt to change to a functional controller. By adding this to the checklist; a crew would not be forced to run the system in manual for the remainder of the flight per the QRH.




Synopsis: A DC-10 Captain reported losing automatic cabin pressurization control. After running the procedure the flight continued in manual pressurization mode.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SJC; Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While briefing the ILS 30L for SJC; the flight crew identified a discrepancy between the missed approach holding point listed on the Jeppesen Chart (ARTAQ) and the missed approach holding point listed in the MCDU (SUNNE). The flight crew verified the existence of both waypoints via the flight planning section of the Jeppesen EFB and found that both waypoints exist approximately 0.5nm from each other. The crew then proceeded to query NorCal Approach about the correct missed approach procedure which was confirmed to be ARTAQ. The flight crew then requested an RNAV approach to the runways and proceeded to the airport without further incident.Bring the discrepancy to the attention of the MCDU software provider and request an update to the procedure database with the correct waypoint.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported MDCU indicated a different missed approach holding point than the Jeppesen chart; which verified an aircraft database error.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [While entering a] left base for Runway XX Left; I was asked if I wanted to change to Runway XX Right for a quicker taxi to parking area; so I accepted the change to Runway XX Right. While doing 90 KTS; I lowered the flaps the final 10 degrees and a heard a loud bang. The flap on the left wing had folded in half toward the fuselage. I applied full right aileron deflection to stay on the extended centerline of the runway. An emergency was not declared as I was focused on getting the airplane back on the ground. After taxiing to parking and inspecting what had happened I noticed that a bolt was left off of the outer hinge of the flap assembly. The airplane had just come out of a 100 hour [maintenance] inspection and I was the first person to fly it. The hinge had fresh paint; I could tell because the smell was quite obvious. There were no marks on the paint that indicated that a bolt had been put back in place and tightened to proper specifications.




Synopsis: The pilot of a BE-76 heard a loud bang after making a final flap extension in preparation for landing. He then observed the left flap was not connected at the outer hinge point. He was able to maintain control of the aircraft and landed safely. During the post flight inspection; he noted that fresh paint on the outboard flap hinge had not been disturbed by the installation of mounting hardware.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower LGA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the hand-off to final approach controller we were advised the previous aircraft had sighted a UAV in the vicinity of DIALS while on the Visual Approach to RWY 31. We were told the UAV was below and to the right side of the flight path. The First Officer began to look outside for the UAV. Approximately 1.5 miles prior to DIALS he saw a UAV. UAV was:100-200 FT off the right wing50-100 FT above the aircraft (aircraft was at 2;500 FT)Shape: RectangularSize: Approximately 2 FT longColor: Silver/WhiteConfiguration: 2 propeller areas - front and backWe advised the Final Approach Controller and the LGA Tower of all the details.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports a NMAC with a UAV at 2;500 feet near DIALS during the Expressway Visual Approach to LGA.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: commercial fixed wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: NorCal Approach cleared us to descend via the SLMMR4 except maintain 11;000 ft. Descending out of 12;000 ft. we began monitoring the approaching traffic closely. The target was climbing and heading straight toward us. As we began leveling off at 11;000 ft. the traffic was continuing to climb and showing 500 ft. below us. NorCal gave us a left turn 15 degrees for the traffic. They we're showing -300 ft. at this time on our TCAS. As we started the turn we immediately received a Traffic Advisory followed by a Traffic Resolution. I clicked off the autopilot and climbed as instructed by the TR. [The Captain] notified ATC that we are responding to a TR. ATC never acknowledged and gave us new instructions to descend to 6;000 ft. and heading 245. All that was said was traffic no factor. We never saw the traffic visually.NorCal is typically handling several aircraft simultaneously. We were given the descent via except maintain 11;000 ft. for a reason. We assumed it was for traffic; but was never stated. ATC panicked when they realized what was going on and never acknowledged that there was an aircraft that potentially was on a collision course with us. Mistakes happen quite often; but given the crossing restriction without any other narrative or further communication until seconds before the TR is unacceptable. Possibly ATC was preoccupied with other aircraft that distracted them from our conflict.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported an NMAC and a Traffic Alert during descent.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was an instructional Sports Pilot ride preparing the student for his check ride.  First 1.2 hrs of flight time was uneventful and consisted of multiple traffic pattern and engine out patterns both on and off airport.  During the third off airport engine out; when power was applied at approximately 700 ft AGL; the engine did not spool all the way up.  Due to inability to maintain level flight and insufficient altitude to glide to [the nearest airport]; I made the decision to perform a precautionary landing in a farmer's field below us.  I performed the landing gear up intentionally and we came to a rest with little damage to the aircraft and very little damage to the farmer's crops.  Both I and the student pilot walked away from the landing uninjured.  From the time of the recognized power loss to the landing; we were on the ground within 2 minutes.




Synopsis: ICON A5 pilot reported landing in a field after experiencing loss of power at 700 FT AGL.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon completion of Runway items checklist. Trainee applied takeoff power per PA-31 SOP. [Trainee] continued with proper calls and proper procedures. At about 80KTS I noticed a surging of the aircraft's right engine. I quickly checked engine gauges and fuel indications; no apparent indication for engine surging. The surging continued as the aircraft continued to accelerate I then elected to command an abort via proper callouts and took command of the aircraft from Trainee. We slowed the aircraft and exited the runway and returned to the ramp.




Synopsis: A Piper PA31 Captain reported an aborted takeoff due to engine surging.