elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Captain programmed FMS for SYR. Alternate was ROC with weather building in the area. After BEEPS the Captain put ROC airport instead of SYR. Neither Captain nor the First Officer noted the error. ATC cleared flight to 15;000 FT and plane turned to ROC. ATC asked if we were turning to SYR. The First Officer was the flying pilot stopped the descent and the turn until the Captain reprogrammed the FMS and turned to SYR. The Controller never gave any change of instructions.No TCAS alert. Error was due to the plane arriving late about 50 minutes to gate due to Maintenance. Captain was concerned with weather at the alternate ROC and put that into the flight plan. During the flight we were watching the weather and did not notice anything wrong until the Controller asked if we were turning toward SYR. Be more vigilant while programming the FMS and flying. Not being so concerned about the time off the gate. Rushing did not help.




Synopsis: An aircraft was late arriving at the gate; so the Captain hurriedly entered the FMS data with an incorrect destination; ROC instead of SYR. Enroute watching weather; the crew missed the error until ATC queried about the destination.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was settled into my hotel; having just diverted to ZZZ due to smoke and convective activity. I received the two emails I enclosed with this report. They tersely reported 'Southern California ACA' (Airspace Coordination Area) and 'Northern California ACA' and gave a range of altitudes. I had never heard of an ACA; so I used Google to find the FAA acronym list. There was no mention of an ACA. The email also mentioned 'Notice Number: NOTCXXXX' so I searched this as well. I found a reference to ZZZ1. That notice expired December; 2008. My cellphone was having trouble making phone calls; so I didn't call [company] until the following day. At that point; I was informed that nobody (including the FSS briefers) previously knew what an ACA was. The briefer pointed me to an FDC NOTAM that gave further information. There was no reference to the FDC NOTAM in the emails I received. I would not have been able to find the FDC NOTAM myself until the FSS briefer pointed me toward it. I would have hoped that the FAA had learned its lesson after declaring ATC Zero events earlier this year and failing to inform pilots what this meant. If the FAA is going to use terms and acronyms; these need to be defined in advance; and educational materials need to be disseminated to pilots and FSS briefers. Also; if FAASafety.gov is going to send emails to pilots; these emails should have useful information.




Synopsis: Pilot reported diverting due to weather; then received email notifications from FAA that were confusing.
Date: 201510
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out; the First Officer (who was flying) said the yoke roll feel was unusual in bank (roll) of over 10 degrees.  He gave me the aircraft and I concurred.  The control force was more than usual and so we contacted Dispatch who patched us through to [Maintenance].  Phone problems delayed a resolution.  We were flying over an area that had gusty crosswinds due to the remnants of hurricane Patricia so we decided the best course of action was to return to EWR in case something else went wrong and we would have to drop into one of these airports underneath us. The QRH did not have a checklist for this but we checked.  We also referenced the FOM for the divert. The aircraft also had two deferrals due to speed brakes and we did not know if this was contributing to this or not.  [Maintenance] did not think so. Once the flaps extended for landing; the problem went away.  It also did not duplicate on the ground for a flight control check.  It only happened in flight with the flaps up. We also did not feel [an emergency was warranted] since the flight controls were working; but just felt different. Everything was uneventful once the flaps were extended for landing. We then changed planes and continued to [our destination].




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported they returned to departure airport because of 'unusual' control feel in roll.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On rollout deployed reversers. Noticed left pull and used heavier braking on RH side. Aircraft tracked fine down centerline. Captain advised one reverser inop. Walk-around prior to flight revealed no indication that No. 2 reverser had been inadvertently locked out. On ground post-flight walk-around verified that reverser lockout pins on No. 2 engine were NOT extended showing red. Mechanic found hydraulics lockout in place after opening cowling. This would not be visible during an external walk-around inspection. This is a procedural issue. During maintenance there is probably a checklist for this and it was simply overlooked; perhaps due to fatigue.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported that right engine reverser failed to deploy. Post-flight inspection revealed that the reverser was locked out in a manner that was not visible during preflight.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RSW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RSW
ATC / advisory: Tower RSW
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As First Officer was hand flying and intercepting the final approach course; he alerted me to something he thought was a drone. I was trying to identify something slightly right of the nose and he drew my attention back to the left as two quad copter drones passed right to left off the nose and passed the left wingtip. The drones had a white base/bottom with a dark/black rotor area. We estimate the distance from us was between 200-300 feet. I immediately notified tower and he alerted the aircraft behind us to the threat. After discussing the event on the ground; we realized that the object on the right was also likely a third drone. I notified ground control that we believed there were likely three drones and he stated the aircraft following us had also seen the drones.

Callback: Reporter stated they were on approach to RSW when two drones passed from right to left at about 200-300 feet and other drone was off to the right. Their aircraft had just intercepted the glide slope when they saw the drones. They were curious what the drones were doing there.



Synopsis: Air carrier crew on approach to RSW had several drones pass within 200-300 feet.
Date: 201208
Location: MFE.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MFE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We taxied out from the FBO to Runway 13. As we approached the area on the parallel taxiway near the end of the runway; we checked in 'ready'. The Local Controller replied to 'hold short of the runway; landing traffic' It was a hazy summer day and on first look down the final approach we could not see the landing Cessna. While looking for the aircraft I failed to see the unusually placed hold short line and inadvertently crossed it. When I realized this; I called the Tower to tell them that I had crossed. The landing aircraft was already on the ground and clearing. He said 'no problem' and cleared us for takeoff. There was no conflict at any time. In the future I will be more diligent in my review of the airport diagram and pay particular attention to the location of 'hold short' lines; looking for unusual placement.




Synopsis: An aircraft crossed the MFE Runway 13 hold short line because it was located so far from the runway.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working and sector above me asked me to key their frequency because they believed that they lost frequency. I couldn't change their frequency. The CIC then asked if I had my frequency. I had tried to ship an aircraft prior but then tried another and no response. [Operations Manager] then came down the aisle and said switch to VTABS [Voice Switching and Control System Training and Backup Switch]. I proceeded to plug into D-side position PRE-jack. My frequency still wasn't working. I called ZME Calico sector to try they to give my Aircraft X. No luck reaching Aircraft X. I then plugged into D-side headset jack and broadcast for Aircraft X. I had never gotten a response but Aircraft X started descending at 3 mins till loss of separation and 4 mins till impact. We were CPDLC testing at the time of the event. I needed a D-side but was unable to get help because I needed to communicate with aircraft and there was no position available to help me.




Synopsis: Kansas City Controller reported radio problems in the area and then a loss of separation due to the radio failure.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDG.TRACON, PA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E RDG
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on frequency expecting an ILS for RY36 as advertised on the ATIS. Due to weather observed on final to RY36 I offered the ILS RY13 as an alternative. The pilot said sounds like a good idea and that he was getting set up for RY13 instead. I then descended him to what I thought was 3000 (the MVA) as I have done for years in that area. The Low Altitude alert went off somewhere around 2600-2500 MSL. I advised the pilot of his altitude and he said I told him to descend to 2000. At this point he was entering a lower MVA area of 2100. I told him to just maintain 2000 and he simultaneously reported the airport was in sight anyway. I asked if he would like a visual approach clearance instead. He did; and I cleared him for the visual approach for RY13. He landed without incident.Aircraft X had his company Aircraft Y about 5 miles in trail inbound also. I advised the aircraft of similar sounding call signs. I don't know if it was the [number]'s in the call signs that were on my mind or not; but after I listened to the tape; I indeed did say to descend to 2000; not 3000 as I thought I had. I've descended aircraft in this area probably a couple thousand times in my career and this is the first time 2000 ever came out. I didn't catch the read back of 2000 either. I was expecting 3000. Recommend closer attention to read back and not what I expect to hear.




Synopsis: Approach Controller reported issuing an altitude below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude; triggering a Low Altitude Alert.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Hawker Horizon (Raytheon)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approach cleared us direct to VINGS; 2;000 MSL and 210 KIAS. Prior to VINGS; Approach changed the clearance to an assigned heading or 090; maintain 2;000 FT until established; cleared for the ILS 6 at TEB. Since we were on an assigned heading to intercept the localizer we accepted the ACT (activate) VECTORS - YES feature of the Honeywell FMS which 'cleans up' the navigation display; depicts the localizer course and TORBY (FAF) was the next fix displayed. We intercepted the localizer course; maintaining 2;000 and were preparing for glideslope intercept when NY Approach indicated we should be over DANDY at 1;500 and to descend to 1;500. DANDY was not available for reference nor displayed. We began an immediate descent to 1;500 intercepted the glide slope; completed the approach and landing uneventfully.To ensure recollection and compliance with mandatory altitude constraints this information should be included in the Notes and/or Plan View sections of the associated approach charts. Also; diligent crew awareness and coordination is required when the FMS; displays no longer depict the fix/altitude and DME (raw data) is the only available remaining reference for DANDY.




Synopsis: When they were given vectors for the ILS Runway 6 at TEB the flight crew of a Hawker Horizon selected the 'Activate Vectors' mode of the Honeywell FMS; which removed the fix prior to the FAF; DANDY--which has a mandatory crossing at 1;500 MSL--from the display. They continued at their previously assigned 2;000 MSL; unaware of the need to cross the fix at the required altitude.  ATC caught the impending error and advised the crew of the need to descend.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Plane loaded early. Received Dangerous Goods (DG) paperwork with accessible DG. Two full pallets; one of flammable liquid; one of oxidizer. These pallets were placed next to each other in 2L and 3L. As this was a Wide body cargo aircraft; no firefighting capability with pallets containing hazardous material.The Flight Operations Manual (FOM) has two statements concerning separation that apply. One; incompatible classes must be separated by 3 feet and the second is that for separation requirements; if the DG is contained in different ULD containers; that suffices for required separation.  I was not comfortable with a full pallet of flammable liquid right next to a full pallet of incompatible oxidizer with nothing but less than 12 inches of space and a little Saran wrap between them.  Consulted with the ramp agent and specialist and was informed they could move one Haz pallet to allow more room between them. I agreed and accepted responsibility for the resulting delay; the ramp personnel opted to bump the flammable liquid pallet; leaving only the oxidizer which did resolve our issue.A review of the separation requirements might be good; as I'm not sure this is the situation envisioned when the second statement was added.  My concern in this DG situation was safety. I was willing to take all the DG material; just wanted a bit more space between the pallets.  Please review the FOM separation requirements.  Do not remove the crewmembers from the DG review procedures; as this may keep a DG incident from occurring.




Synopsis: Widebody cargo aircraft Captain reported noticing during preflight incorrect loading of hazardous materials. Aircraft was reloaded properly.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the course of my Commercial FAA check ride while doing a normal takeoff the nose gear collapsed prior to rotation. I did the normal checklist prior to departure and both myself and the DPE were certain the gear handle was down. There were no warning lights; nor gear horn alarm. Maintenance is still evaluating the situation; but I suspect that the gear handle that pulls out and retracts to allow up and down movement of the handle was sticking; which allowed the handle to move during takeoff.




Synopsis: C172RG pilot experiences a nose gear collapse during takeoff.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Additional co-pilot brakes had been added to the aircraft by owner/pilot.  Low speed taxi tests went well.  Progressively higher taxi speeds were used to determine if co-pilot side brakes were operating correctly.  During a higher speed taxi test on the main runway the aircraft began to veer to the left.  Pilot was unable to maintain directional control of the airplane and struck one 't-post' (not connected to any fencing) on the side of the runway.  The impact caused minor damage to the underside of the of the fuselage; a small puncture in the Dacron skin.  The minor damage to the aircraft does not fit the definition of 'substantial damage' it was determined that no accident report was required at this time.  After further inspection the co-pilot side left master cylinder was found to be 'sticking' when depressed and appears to have locked the left side brakes causing the loss of control.  Without disassembling the master cylinder was unable to determine the cause of the master cylinder 'sticking'.




Synopsis: Rans S6 Coyote Light Sport Aircraft pilot reported while completing a high-speed taxi to test out new brakes the aircraft veered left and struck a pole on the side of the runway.