elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDC; Special Use R5314
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cherry Point (NKT) handed Aircraft X to me climbing going northbound. He needed to deviate to the right for weather. I called NKT to let them know and thankfully he said; reference R5314 and Phelps that was ok. We were not showing either piece of airspace active and if NKT would not have reminded me to keep Aircraft X clear of the active airspace; it could have been a problem. I just received a safety briefing the day before about this very issue. Military airspace being active and the controller working the sector not knowing. This was the 4th occurrence in about 24 hours after the briefing. Guess the briefing isn't working.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller reported issuing a point out due to weather; getting it approved; and then learning some special airspace was in fact hot. Reporter did not know the airspace was hot until the point out and other Controller advising.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Programmed wrong SID. I would suggest that a SID (or STAR) not have a fix that is the name of another SID (STAR). I should not have missed this; but with the passenger problem I got in a hurry.

Callback: Reporter stated that the Flight Plan departure was the MAXXO 3 which was loaded in the FMC. Reporter stated that he and the First Officer were distracted by a passenger issue when the PDC was received with a different Departure (FTHLS 5) that concluded with a MAXXO transition. Reporter said that both he and the first Officer keyed on the word MAXXO and did not change the Departure. Reporter stated that it was their mistake; but the use of a fix name that is also the name of another Departure can be misleading.

Second narrative: On receiving PDC during cockpit preparation I noted a reroute. I changed the previously entered routing on my iPad Jeppesen app. After changing the route in my iPad I was distracted by one of the flight attendants asking for help with a passenger issue. On returning to cockpit preparation duties I made the enroute changes to the flight plan; but did not change the SID from the one previously entered. I started making the enroute changes at the end fix of the SID which was the same fix on both SIDS. Error was noted shortly after takeoff. Using a fix that is in multiple procedures as the title of one of the procedures can cause misidentification of the procedure. Don't title a SID with a fix that is in multiple procedures of the same type.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they flew the wrong PHX SID due to confusion between the name of the SID and the name of a fix utilized in other PHX SIDs.
Date: 201302
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This was my first trip after the iPad implementation. I pulled it out to see if it worked and it didn't. After initially signing in to unlock it; I tried to see if I could access my manuals. All I got was an error message stating my profile expired. I received no training on this piece of equipment; and I don't own a notepad (or whatever these things are called); so I had no idea what to do. I consulted the highly inadequate 'guide to [use] iPad' handout I received with it; and the bulletin regarding the iPad. Neither of these addressed this error message. I ended [UP] taking it into the Flight Office before my flight to seek guidance. The expert said the iPad dumped everything; and he had to completely reload it. When I asked why this happened (so I make sure it doesn't happen again) he said something to the effect of: yeah; it just does that sometimes. Great! So there I may be; in the cockpit; in an emergency situation; trying to access my flight manual; and nothing! Once again this is a clear case of the company's 'ready; fire; aim' style of management. This device is not yet ready for implementation; and therefore not safe as the only reference device for our manuals.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports trouble accessing material in his company issued iPad and suggests that it is not ready to replace paper charts and manuals.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Deicing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I revived a call from ZZZ indicating a Captain and an FAA ASI would not allow the flaps to be deiced with them in the extended position. Both cited the AMM as not allowing this. Embraer (manufacture) was contacted immediately.  A verbal discussion yielded limited results. After a discussion with the Flight Deck and ASI; the flaps were dropped to remove the contamination. The flight continued safely.




Synopsis: A manager is informed that a Captain and an FAA ASI would not allow the flaps to be deiced with them in the extended position; with both citing the Airplane Maintenance Manual as not allowing this.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SPS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SPS
ATC / advisory: CTAF SPS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arrived overhead SPS inbound from southeast at 4000 ft. Activated pilot controlled lighting prior to being overhead to confirm location of runway. CA began turn to displace for downwind for runway 15C. We both noted that runway 33 was lit for use which was opposite direction for winds. We had planned to land runway 15C due to wind. Upon turning final; realized 15C was not lit when comparing LOC course to actual lit runway. runway 15R was lit. CA called for go around; we executed the go around and returned to left downwind to brief runway 15R visual approach. No further issues. After researching why runway 15R was lit we discovered we missed the note in the release. We also realized the notes in the 10-9A page can be misleading. Note 1 is clear that 15R/33L are lit when the Tower [is closed]. Note 3 is less clear with the use of 'and' and the caveat of 'depending on weather'. Additionally; the lighting to both 15R and 33L are described as MALSR and the diagrams on approach plates are the same. They are not. 33L has lead in lights with SFLs; but 15R does not. At least they weren't lit last night. We saw we had briefed and expected one runway but lighting to a different runway was encountered. We trapped that error by not continuing to accept the approach and possibly simply transitioned to a sidestep. So we went around and prepared for the 'new' runway. The release note would be better served if it were in the Arrival Remarks of the 10-7X page. The strange caveats of the approach plate notes in the 10-9A page could be clarified. For our improvement our crew could have discussed the notes. But we both missed the notes. So we need to incorporate better awareness of where notes can be located.




Synopsis: A medium turbojet First Officer reported there was confusion in the cockpit during a night visual approach to SPS airport concerning runway lighting and airport notes.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying pilot. During the takeoff roll; I looked to crosscheck airspeed at approximately 10 knots before V1 (V1 = 151 kts). As I looked back outside; the 'CONFIG FLAPS' master warning went off. The Captain called reject and took control of the aircraft. Estimated airspeed that the reject decision was initiated was approximately 145 kts. As we were slowing down; I noticed spoilers were not deployed; and I manually deployed the spoilers to the 'up' position. Then; as directed by the Captain; I also made a radio call to tower to advise of the rejected takeoff. The aircraft quickly slowed down to taxi speed and we were easily able to taxi clear at the end of the runway onto taxiway.We were instructed to taxi back. During this time; there was some communication difficulties with tower/ground. It was hard to understand what they were asking; and there was a lot of 'say again'. During taxi; we were monitoring brake temps and watching them rise; while answering questions from the controller. I was trying to coordinate between the Captain and Ground controller whether or not we could return to the parking stand. While; we continued holding short of taxiway; Ground asked us to call our handler for parking assistance. While we were stopped; initially one tire went flat. We asked for a tug to tow us in due to the flat tire. While we were waiting; a total of 7 tires went flat. When we started losing more tires; our on-board mechanic said we could not move or tow the airplane with flat tires. We were now stuck on an active taxiway.




Synopsis: First Officer of a jumbo cargo aircraft reported a high speed rejected takeoff due to a flap configuration warning light. The takeoff was aborted successfully; however the spoilers failed to deploy as designed resulting in several main gear tires deflating due to aggressive braking and subsequent heat buildup.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I received CLR (Cargo Load Report) with motorized mobility aid - lithium ion battery aft cargo compartment circled with no aft cargo weight listed. I inquired the rampers and they said there was a mobility aid scooter in the back and they didn't know the weight or if the battery was still installed. The gate agent asked the passenger about the device and they said the lithium ion battery was installed and could not be removed. I reviewed the FOM dealing with mobility aid device batteries. I had the gate agent inform the passenger that battery would have to be removed from the mobility aid; and they would need to carry the battery with them under the seat in front of them. The passenger said the battery could not be removed; and that they could not travel without it. They decided to get off the flight. More training for rampers to recognize hazardous materials and to properly record cargo.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported HAZMAT procedure violation due to a mobility aid with a non removable lithium ion battery in aft cargo.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Student Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was an engine fire that occurred after a hot start attempt. We tried to start the plane normally with the fuel pump; and then attempted again without the fuel pump. After the first attempt we decided to let the starter cool down for 20 seconds and cranked for another 10 seconds with the mixture lean and the throttle half way as the hot start [procedure] said. The engine almost started so we decided to pump the throttle. We let the plane rest; but soon after; the engine started smoking and we rushed out of the plane; cut off the mixture; and got the closest fire extinguisher to extinguish the flame. We should not have pumped the throttle as this could have been the cause of the engine fire; especially with a hot engine.


Second narrative: Upon attempting to start the aircraft; we went through the normal before engine start checklist and cranked the engine; it almost started but did not. We then tried the flooded start procedure with full lean mixture and full throttle. The aircraft still sputtered but did not start. We then turned off the electric fuel pump and waited 20 seconds for the starter to cool down. Then we tried once more with no start and still the flooded start procedure. After that we decided to let the started cool off for longer and turned off the battery master to save battery charge. Shortly after turning off the electrical switches we noticed smoke coming out from under the cowling. We set the mixture to full lean and vacated the aircraft; confirmed the presence of flames under the cowling; retrieved a fire extinguisher and put out the fire


Synopsis: PA-28 Instructor Pilot and Student reported evacuating the aircraft on the ramp when they experienced and engine fire following multiple start attempts.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post flight unload
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival in ZZZ the Ramp Agent informed us that an electric wheelchair was loaded into a container and the unfinished paper work was sitting on the electric chair seat. The agent in ZZZ1 had informed us the passenger had his wheel chair loaded in the belly. We were unaware that the wheel chair was electric and had batteries. This should have had a Hazmat paperwork and notification to the flight deck.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported electric wheelchair transported to destination without required documents or NOTOC at departure airport.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took over the RADAR position at BPT/SBI. There were several slow aircraft in the 20's and 1 at FL190 moving eastbound which caused a complexity issue for aircraft departing the Houston terminal area. At the same time there were at least 2 aircraft westbound at FL220 moving slowly which compounded the complexity. As the departure traffic began to increase significantly; a military jet came out requesting W147D. The coordination for this airspace is very communication intensive (in fact; 7 sectors must be called and advised/requested that it is going active).  A D-Side was placed and she began helping out.  Aircraft X departed with Aircraft Y departing after on the same route of flight.  The departure (I90) controller coordinated with my D-Side that Aircraft X was assigned 280 knots or greater and Aircraft Y was assigned 280 knots. Both were leveled at interim altitudes and then their climb was resumed when they cleared the traffic.  I noticed that the Aircraft Y was overtaking the Aircraft X so I amended that Aircraft X's altitude to FL180 and instructed the Aircraft Y to expedite his climb to FL230. I  don't know if there was ever less than 1;000 feet between but there was less than 5 miles. I told the supervisor on duty and he called his counterpart at I90 (Houston Approach Control). The I90 supervisor told my supervisor that the departure controller was in training and the trainer had taken over when he was overwhelmed. He also said that the trainee put speeds on both aircraft but removed the speed restriction on one of them (It wasn't clear which). Neither myself nor my D-side was made aware that a speed restriction had been removed.I recommend that all speed restrictions are forwarded from approach to ARTCC. Flow control might also look into routing 'low and slow' aircraft away from busy departure sectors during periods of high traffic.




Synopsis: ZHU Controller reports of a loss of separation due to lack of speed control. Other sector did not advise the working sector that speeds were not given/or removed to continue separation standards.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Received radar jamming at approximately 80 NM west to 80 NM east of ABQ VOR. The QRH was run for all abnormal alerts. ATC advised and a logbook entry was made with Maintenance being advised in route. No further interruptions occurred. Ground GPS jamming around the ABQ VOR is regularly occurring.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing radar/GPS jamming in the vicinity of ABQ VOR.