elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: 30 minutes prior to departure; I notified the crew desk that no First Officer had shown up for this trip. At departure time; crew desk informed me that they were still looking for a First Officer. I was asked if I was willing to fly with another Captain flying as my co-pilot; and I agreed to this request. A Captain was found who was willing to fly the red eye. Upon arriving at the aircraft; the Captain told me he wasn't aware that the assignment was for him to fly as a First Officer; and he told me it had been years since he had last been a co-pilot; and that he was not a Check Airman or LCA. I notified the duty Manager and Crew Scheduling that I didn't think this was a legal assignment; and I wasn't willing to fly with this Captain who was not qualified in the right seat. 4 hours after brief time; the flight canceled.




Synopsis: A320 Captain discovers no First Officer has been assigned to his flight and none is apparently available. A Captain is found and assigned the flight; but apparently not informed of the seat assignment. Upon arriving at the aircraft and learning the details he declines the assignment believing he is not qualified; having not flown as a First Officer in many years.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
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: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Ramp
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my third flight back after a 7 month absence (first flight back into ZZZ); I forgot to call the ramp prior to parking at Gate XXX; one of the exterior gates. I believe ground control cleared us 'taxi to the gate' or a similar clearance; and I simply forgot that I was supposed to call Ramp Tower.


Second narrative: Taxed into gate without ramp clearance. The self park was green with wing walkers. It is a short taxi from Runway XXR.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported a ramp incursion and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Touched down for touch and go; was too far left of center line to take off. Corrected with right rudder to get back onto center line; put in full power and was pulled to the left of center line. Over corrected with right rudder and again with left rudder; with full power in; was taken off of [the runway] onto the grass after [the crossing runway] intersection and into the grass. Regained aircraft control and stopped on taxiway. Shut down aircraft on taxiway after tower approval and did a walkaround to determine if the aircraft was damaged. After no visual damage; the aircraft was restarted and went through a typical run up. No abnormalities were noticed and the aircraft was taxied to the hold short line of [the runway] and proceeded to do a normal takeoff.


Second narrative: Student arrived at airport after cross country flight for training purposes; I had inquired with the student how the flight went and the student told me that the flight did not go well and that he had a runway excursion. When I had further inquired what had happened student told me that when flying into [the airport] he had been doing touch and goes which were not authorized as per our training programs Pilot Training Operations Manual for solo flight. When he had landed after his second lap in the traffic pattern he had removed flaps and added full power after landing off centerline. He said the aircraft had then started to turn and he then proceeded to over correct with rudder which led to then veering of the runway into the grass followed by entering a taxiway. Tower then proceeded to call out assistance to make sure the student and aircraft were ok. After an inspection the student started up the aircraft and got cleared for an intersection departure where he terminated his flight.


Synopsis: C172 student pilot and instructor reported a runway excursion while the student was doing solo touch and goes; which were not approved under solo flight conditions.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All checklists were completed before departure and the stabilizer trim was verified at 5.4 by both pilots on the Before Takeoff Checklist. It was the first leg of the pilot flying's IOE and great care was taken to ensure that the FMS trim matched the aircraft trim. Additionally both pilots confirmed the Green Box was enunciated on the EAD during the below the line portion of the Before Takeoff Checklist. The only abnormal alert on the EAD was for the air system as the number 2 pack was turned off (this was confirmed by looking at the air system synoptic as we took the runway). At approximately 110 KIAS the take off configuration warning sounded followed by 'stabilizer.' The takeoff was aborted. Passing 60 KTS IAS I noted that the Green configuration box on the EAD was now white. The stabilizer trim then indicated 5.6. Neither pilot adjusted the trim after configuring the aircraft for departure and confirming that 5.4 was set on the Before Takeoff Checklist. 5.6 is still in the take off range; and according to our manual; the configuration box on the EAD should have been still Green. I don't know what caused the warning. I don't understand how or why the stab trim changed from 5.4 to 5.6 on the take off roll; and why the EAD configuration box was white with the word stab in it with the stab trim in the takeoff range.




Synopsis: A Widebody aircraft flight crew rejected their takeoff at about 110 KTS in response to a takeoff configuration stabilizer trim warning. The reporter noted that the trim setting had remained in the 'green band' and has no explanation for why the warning sounded.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent on STAR; autopilot failed as aircraft leveled off at 11;000 ft. PF (Pilot Flying) took manual control of aircraft and held altitude of 11;000 ft. Aircraft momentarily dipped to 10;800 ft. after autopilot failed. We referenced the QRH; which did not offer a fix. Remainder of flight was flown manually without incident. However; after shutdown; trim ran to down position; without being commanded. Not sure if this was related to the autopilot failure.Not sure if abnormal trim was the cause of the autopilot failure.As all indications were normal prior the event; it is difficult to suggest prevention. While autopilots are generally reliable; automation still requires monitoring.




Synopsis: EMB-135LR First Officer reported the autopilot failed on descent; possibly related to a pitch trim issue.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain landed; normal touchdown; normal braking. A cart from the rear galley came loose and traveled the entire length of the aircraft; striking multiple passengers and ultimately impacting the flight deck door. This resulted in 3 minor injuries on passengers that had elbows or knees protruding into the aisle. These 3 passengers walked off the aircraft; and after brief interactions with the EMTs on the jet bridge; they departed the area. A 4th passenger was reportedly struck with sufficient force that her head impacted the seat back video screen; causing it to crack. She was attended to by paramedics; later walking off the aircraft. When the crew left the gate area; this passenger was laying on a gurney and in the care of the EMTs.I cannot say why the cart came loose. There are two external locks and a parking brake; any one of which would seem to be sufficient to restrain a cart.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported several passengers were injured when a galley cart came loose on the landing roll and rolled the length of the aircraft.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am writing this report because of a safety concern; there were no mistakes or concerns with our flight just a light twin that was trying to fly the RNP Approach and could not complete it or follow ATC instructions.We were about to start the approach when we heard Approach Control trying to get the light twin to stay on assigned heading and climb. Over and over he had to tell him; you are turning the wrong way; you are not climbing. He cleared us for approach and I got a visual on him of my left wing; again ATC was trying to get him on heading and altitude. I was getting concerned about being close to the guy and asked ATC to keep us away from him; a short time after that we were told to make a right turn off the approach and climb to 4000'. He then told the guy; just fly straight. He asked him to go to a VFR field; land and get it together and try the approach later. The guy said no; he was then told he couldn't do the RNP again and tried the LOC next.We were back on the approach at that point and had an uneventful landing. I would like to add that the Approach Controller did a great job dealing with the other Pilot.My concern is having light twins flown by Pilots that shouldn't be flying IFR (due to lack of experience) being in the same place that we are flying. The result is that it makes for a tense and stressful situation. Again I am only writing this to point out a safety concern.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being vectored off the approach to avoid a light twin pilot that could not or would not comply with ATC instruction.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While preparing to land on Runway 24L at CLE; on short final at only 500 feet AGL; an object was seen in front of the aircraft on the right side of glide path. It maneuvered to cross our flightpath within close proximity and was thought to be a bird. As it came down the left side of our airplane the flight crew realized it was a small white UAV within 100 feet of the cockpit. It was too late to take evasive action; and was not possible with only seconds before touchdown. The UAV came dangerously close to the left wing as we passed it at an altitude just below 500 AGL. Flight crew estimates the size of the UAV to be 14' to 28' in span; and appeared to be a Quad-Copter style drone that was white in color. It looked to be filming us as it crossed our flightpath from right to left. Suggest having spotters in the tower to keep an eye out for drones around the airport; and utilize police to detain responsible parties.




Synopsis: Embraer First Officer reported encountering a drone while on short final to CLE airport.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise my passenger noticed smoke in the cockpit. I immediately saw oil spraying on the windshield. Within 20 seconds most forward visibility had been lost. I identified a possible forced landing site on the nearby beach in the event the engine failed completely or caught fire. The engine oil temperature [and] pressure; as well as the CHTs looked good; so I decided to attempt to make it back to [departure airport.] I declared an emergency on 121.5 and received no response; so I re-declared the emergency with TRACON. The remainder of the flight proceeded without incident and I was able to land safely and taxi to the ramp on my own power.On the ground it was clear that a substantial amount of oil had coated the windshield and horizontal stabilizer. Oil continued to leak around the exhaust. I suspect the oil contacting hot exhaust parts may have caused the initial smoke. I'd guess that the likely cause of the oil was related to the prop governor; which had earlier been showing signs of unstable RPM; oscillating about +/- 50 RPM from the desired setting. I should have recognized this deviation as a sign of a potential problem with the prop governor rather than normal slop.




Synopsis: M20J pilot reported probable prop governor problem resulting in an oil leak that coated the windshield.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
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 ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU; TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Directed to fly NNCEE arrival. Directed to descend to FL300 and then via NNCEE; subsequently ATC issued a late descent to 10 miles east of LINKK at 17000 feet. Programmed FMS and determined unable to meet restriction without relief from ATC.ATC provided relief; I flew a fast descent; and met altitude restriction. We were then switched to follow-on ATC controller. ATC controller questioned our descent while inbound NNCEE (at or below 12000 feet). We informed him we obtained relief from previous controller and he responded 'no problem'. We continued with 'descend via'.


Second narrative: I was the Pilot Monitoring during this flight. IAH center assigned the following descent. Descend to cross 10 East of LINKK at 17000!The issue with this clearance is that it was assigned late. The aircraft was already at the top of descent as planned by the FMC for a LINKK crossing between 17000 and 20000 at 280KTS. I immediately informed the center controller that we would need relief from this clearance. The controller responded that relief was granted but try to make the 17000 crossing 10 miles east of LINKK and it was okay if we were fast at the intersection.At LINKK we did make the 17000 and were approximately 320KTS and slowing. We were given a frequency change to IAH approach. This controller asked what our altitude and airspeed where. Then asked what our clearance was. I responded that the previous controller gave the flight 10 mile east of LINKK at 17000 but also provided relief. I also confirmed with this new controlled that we were still cleared to continue descent via the NNCEE 1 transition to runway 9; which he confirmed.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported requesting relief from Center; after receiving a late descent clearance. Approach controller later queried about the previously issued clearance.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Operations delayed flight without Dispatcher contact. I called operations. They said they see a different ETA; which was the reason for the delay. They show an ETA that is 15 minutes sooner than we do. Cross-referencing with [computer] gave me a wheels-on time of XA:22. A 10 minute taxi in time makes our time in plot accurate.Two issues. [Company] has incorrect ETA's and [company; city operations] is not contacting us for delays.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported difference of ETA between Dispatch and Operations.