elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OKBK.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight

Narrative: One minute before pushback in OKBK we received our final takeoff weights. Approximately one hour later; while airborne; we received an ACARS message from the Dispatcher advising our final weights had been revised AFTER our take off and that our actual weight was really 1;864 LBS heavier! The extra weight would not have been critical since a temperature drop from to 36 degrees C (from 38C) gave us an approximate 10;000 LBS cushion before reaching our maximum allowable takeoff weight for this flight.My Observations: These final loading errors are unacceptable given the high ambient temperatures along with the usually tight weight limitations in which we operate in the Middle East. On this flight; the temperature was not a crucial factor and we were not maxed out on weight. Yet; as we all know; any extra weight can affect an aircraft's performance. A timely fix to this problem needs to be found.OKBK passenger and cargo loading procedures need to be re-examined with direct personal visits by Dispatch and Load Planning representatives until satisfactory procedures are attained. Hopefully; we can prevent any future incidents like this.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B777 flight crew received a revision to their takeoff weight and balance data one hour after departure.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight involved a short trip to a new airport for a short weekend visit.... The flight concluded with a hard landing; which resulted in inappropriate braking and a blown left main tire. As the approach unfolded; the correct answer was to go around and set up with less energy. I was aware of that alternative and decided at the time that it was less desireable than proceeding with the landing; as I felt the airspeed was close enough that I could handle the landing. However; the plane continued to float and I had reservations about aborting in a full flap condition at low airspeed; so I continued the landing and tried to get the plane on the ground prematurely; which is a recipe for bouncing in a tricycle geared airplane.The runway does have a 1.3% slope in the the direction of the landing. Glide slope indicators had been NOTAM'd Out of Service (OTS). The 4;000 foot x 75 feet runway should not have been uncomfortably short or narrow for me landing a Bonanza F33; with proper energy management. No one was injured and there is no other apparent damage to the airplane other than the tire. It is difficult to single out a single causal factor for this poor landing; but the prominent one probably was lack of recent flying experience.... I was legally current; but not as proficient as I could have been or should have been for flying a high-performance; complex airplane into an unfamiliar airport like the incident airport.I; like others who have been legally current but not sufficiently proficient because of inactivity; usually do not have a problem; unless there are other contributing; or I would prefer to say complicating; factors. There were several here; and that's perhaps the biggest lesson:  yes; you can fly with relatively low recent experience--if there are no other contributing; or complicating; factors.... Looking back; I should have canceled this flight before it began. One check ride was not enough to give me a good margin of safety for a trip such as this; especially considering my mentally tired condition....




Synopsis: General Aviation Pilot experienced a hard landing and blown tire after floating results from excessive speed on approach to a down-sloping runway.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; 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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed on an IFR flight plan to a nearby uncontrolled airport. While at 3000 feet on a base leg vector for the GPS approach; I experience a total electrical failure and all navigation and communications equipment went off line except for the transponder.I set code 7700 in the transponder and began a descent back to VFR conditions. The communications radio automatically transferred to 121.5 (guard). I attempted to contact Approach on guard but was unsuccessful. I could hear Approach trying to contact me and I could hear another aircraft trying to contact me for relay. I was unable to communicate through this relay.Upon exiting the clouds at about 900 feet AGL; I could see the downtown area. Having a known geographical reference I elected to return to my departure airport. I continued to try to communicate with Approach Control on guard but was unsuccessful. I finally established brief communications with the Tower on guard and informed them of my situation and was given clearance for left traffic and landing. I was also advised of inbound traffic on the ILS to the right runway. That was the last two way communication to be successfully completed. I was asked to IDENT and when I did; the transponder failed too.Now on downwind; I initiated an attempt at normal gear extension but that was unsuccessful. I performed the alternate gear extension procedure. I could feel some drag on the aircraft and noticed a speed reduction; thus I was of the opinion that gear extension to some degree had occurred. I was unable to confirm any gear down indication due to the power failure and unable to communicate with Tower for any assistance. I continued on base leg and final and landed. I touched down on the main gear; unfortunately the nose gear collapsed upon touchdown.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot reports departing on a short IFR flight then losing electrical power. The reporter elects to descend to VMC conditions below 1000 feet AGL and return to the departure airport. The landing gear is pumped down manually and the nose gear collapses on touch down.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
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 DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
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: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the RNAV (RNP) Runway 19 arrival; after completing the checklist; fully configured at GREYZ; somewhere between I believe JUBOL and WIRSO we received an EGPWS 'Caution Obstacle' alert. Simultaneously the tower called and said we were low on our altitude. The First Officer tried to respond to the tower but mistakenly pushed the autopilot disconnect button creating a confusion for me as the flying pilot as to what just happened. At that point; I started to hand fly the aircraft back onto the proper course and altitude for the remainder of the approach. As I was climbing; the aircraft back to a higher altitude we got slow and had to add power. With the nose up attitude; there was a momentary disorientation as to where the runway was located. Found the approach lights and VASI; corrected for being high and made a normal landing. Neither the First Officer nor I can understand how the aircraft got into this situation.  We had pre briefed the approach and checked all the points. Everything seemed normal from GREYZ and SETOC points on the approach. This is obviously not acceptable and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would look into this so I can find out if it was human error or FMC error.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported simultaneously receiving an EGPWS 'Caution Obstacle' alert and an ATC low altitude warning while on approach into DCA.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were experiencing a maintenance delay on our flight. As we were getting close to our new departure time; a Flight Attendant told us the mid galley chiller had shut off twice. We notified maintenance; who apparently deferred the chiller. A new maintenance release was generated. We wanted to make sure there was dry ice for the food in the chiller (or that the chiller was empty); so I spoke with the Flight Attendant in the mid galley. She informed me that the mechanic had told her to use the chiller; and to pull and collar the circuit breaker before arrival. In complete disbelief of what I heard (and having concern for the safety of the operation); I relayed that information to the Captain. The Captain and I went to the mid galley and confirmed that the circuit breaker was in fact in [contrary to] the Minimum Equipment List. We created a new writeup highlighting the incorrect maintenance action; and called for the jet way and a mechanic. The circuit breaker was pulled and collared; a new maintenance release generated; and we were underway. On taxiout; we had another maintenance issue that required a return to gate (L HYD QTY). At this point; we were out of duty time and the flight cancelled. After the passengers got off; we were leaving the aircraft and overheard one mechanic tell another to make sure you pull the data and voice recorders. I do not know who told them to pull the voice recorder; but there was no accident or incident; and the FARs are clear that the voice recorder can not be used for anything other than that. These two separate incidents on this flight lead me to question the oversight and leadership on the maintenance side of our operation.




Synopsis: When a defect was identified with the galley chiller; maintenance utilized the MEL and deferred the system.  A Flight Attendant reported to the flight crew that maintenance personnel had suggested using the equipment and pulling the circuit breaker prior to arrival; in contradiction with the MEL. The flight crew had the system properly deactivated prior to departure.  After returning to the gate for an unrelated maintenance issue; the flight crew reported overhearing maintenance personnel discuss pulling the circuit breakers for the flight recorder and voice recorders for an unknown reason.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PIT.TRACON, PA
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Second aircraft: Falcon 50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Company Policy
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from GRACE intersection on a vector for the ILS RWY28L at PIT. Coordination and point out via automation for descent of Aircraft X to 4000 [feet] for icing was accomplished with DS (Departure) position. Aircraft X was level at 4000 MSL just east of BTP airport when I observed a fast moving target departing BTP airport squawking VFR and climbing toward Aircraft X. I inquired to DS if they were talking to the target. DS stated that someone was calling them right now (this was yelled across the room due to urgency).Conflict alert activate as the traffic pass less than a mile at the same altitude and behind Aircraft X. DS tagged the aircraft VFR as Aircraft Y who subsequently requested VFR flight following to ZZZ.Aircraft X stated urgently as the traffic was issued that they were IMC. Aircraft Y call sign routinely depart BTP airport requesting IFR in the air when there is a RCO at BTP to safely pick up the clearance. In this case; I believe the aircraft was illegally operating in IMC conditions VFR. Have the local FSDO with jurisdiction; contact the company and have a safety discussion about operations using IFR RCO; the effects on controller workload and coordination. In addition; investigate and follow up on the actions of the crew of Aircraft Y. I bet they bust VFR weather minimums routinely with a big sky theory attitude; but would be surprised when they see a replay of how close they were to the other aircraft.




Synopsis: PIT TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict with an IFR aircraft and a VFR aircraft that may have been VFR in IFR conditions.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival at the gate we complied with the station specific APU off procedures and refrained from starting the APU; we arrived at the gate with engine number 2 shut down and left #1 running.  The crew was in the proper position to park us and the Jetway driver was present; it took approximately 2.5 minutes to get the power turned on.  The safety hazard was that the ramp crew opened both cargo doors with an engine running and the beacon on.  They had a belt loader up to the forward door during this time as well.  I was tempted to shut the engine down right there but it was night and I feared creating a more adverse situation in the cabin going down to Emergency lights.During deplaning I asked the ramp lead if it was their procedure to start offloading bags with an engine running and he responded; 'No; no one is supposed to approach the plane until they get the safe to approach signal'.  He was standing in front of the nose of the plane and could see the other rampers opening the forward door and he did nothing.  However; another ramper did show him something on a cell phone during this period.




Synopsis: A B-737 Captain was distressed when; after a night gate arrival; both cargo doors were opened although the left engine was still running while awaiting ground power availability. A station policy directing that APUs not be utilized on arrival aircraft was cited as a contributing factor; as the running engine was required to power aircraft systems including lighting for deplaning passengers.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was Pilot Monitoring. First Officer was Pilot flying. We were executing a Visual Approach backed up with the GPS. We were cleared to land on the left downwind leg and started the descent while turning base to cross the Final Approach Fix at 2;300 feet when the Tower gave us a low altitude alert. The airplane also gave us an obstacle warning. We were aware of the obstacle and did not think it was a factor as we were turning base and had situational awareness regarding the airport and terrane. We did not check with the Tower for the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA); which should have been the case. We climbed to the MVA to intercept the final approach course and landed safely. In the future; when cleared for an approach; I will be sure to request the Minimum Vectoring Altitude if not given.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot conducting a Visual Approach reported receiving a terrain alert from the aircraft and ATC.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While being marshalled into BWI Gate X after sunset; the Ramp Agents were blatantly disregarding Company and FAA Safety procedures and standard operating procedures. The Marshaler had one lit wand and one unlit wand. The Right Wing Walker had two unlit wands. This is an ongoing issue in BWI. Ramp Agents have become lackadaisical and lazy about being disciplined in following the everyday; every flight; 'breaded and butter;' 'back to basics;' standard operating procedures. Nothing has changed or improved lately.1. Ramp Supervisors need to ensure all lighted wands are operating before sunset each night.2. Ramp Agents need to ensure the lighted wands are operational before marshalling an aircraft into the Safety Zone. Do not Marshall the aircraft into the Safety Zone until a FOD (Foriegn Object Debris) walk down has been completed; Safety Zone is clear; and each Ramp Agent has two operating lighted wands.3. Leadership including the BWI Station Manager and Supervisors needs to ensure consistent compliance with all Safety procedures (using lighted wands at night).




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that ramp agents are not following Standard Operating Procedures.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
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: Landing
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on final approach; I was the pilot monitoring. I mentioned to the Pilot Flying that we were cleared for the Visual Approach and were directed by ATC to remain on center line to the runway. There was an aircraft departing  using the opposite direction runway. ATC had indicated to us that they would pass on our left and above and it would not be a factor. The Pilot Flying was worried about the oncoming traffic and started descending more rapidly. I mentioned to him that we should not get too close to the terrain that is on final. He indicated to me that there was too much going on with oncoming traffic and the workload. I indicated to him that we should level off to preclude a aural warning of terrain. We did get a terrain warning; and I indicated we should climb to comply with our SOP. The Pilot Flying momentarily leveled off. The Pilot Flying failed to listen to me about climbing. The warning subsided and we continued in for a uneventful landing.




Synopsis: A corporate jet Captain reported the co pilot descended too low on a Visual Approach despite their instructions and received a Terrain Alert.