elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Hawker Horizon (Raytheon)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B350 called me on a 090 heading. He hadn't tagged up yet but I had a primary target; so I RADAR ID'd him and asked his altitude. He responded he was out of 026. I didn't hear final descend a Hawker (apparently Tower approved a point-out) out of 050 on the downwind. When the tag on the B350 came up (the Mode C altitude had not displayed yet) final came over to me and asked if he was stopped at 030. I said no. He said he stopped the Hawker at 040. I told the B350 to maintain 030 for traffic. At that moment his Mode C displayed and he was already at 036 (maybe even 038; I do not readily recall). I told him to turn to heading 360 immediately. At the same time; final turned the Hawker to a 180 heading. The B350 had already started descending and complied with the turn de-conflicting the two aircraft. Tower should have advised final of the traffic that was still in their departure release area prior to approving a lower altitude for the Hawker.


Second narrative: Training on Local Control 1; a B350 had been departed [Runway] 2C on heading 090. I confirmed the B350 clear of [Runway] 2R for departure Air Commercial traffic. Final flashed point out on the Hawker on downwind. Never having seen this situation in training before; I assumed that final would be aware of the B350 as known traffic as he had been scanned and cleared for take off at least 2 minutes prior. I knew that the [Runway] 2R Air Carrier traffic would miss the Hawker and believed that the Controller pointing out the Hawker would have to know about and miss the B350 since he had been scanned into the computer and had been airborne for some time. It would be very helpful in this situation and numerous others that I have seen to get some training and/or OJT in the TRACON before and/or while training on Local Control. There is no formal classroom training here and making this type of mistake is the predominant way to learn the position.


Synopsis: TRACON developmental described a loss of separation event when communications between the reporter and another developmental in the tower cab fail to address the impending situation.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were informed by flight office when returning for a mechanical issue that we blew over a cargo container upon leaving the ramp area. We weighed approximately 842;000 lbs at beginning of taxi. We were pushed back from gate facing north. We started all four engines normally and were released to taxi from the ramp and given a taxi clearance by ground control. I pushed the power up to no more than 35% for initial taxi. After the airplane started moving (almost immediately) I started a left turn of approximately 30 degrees to clear a parked 777 at [a nearby gate]. I intercepted the inner taxiway (A) on this heading and turned right to join. I reduced power to idle after the turn never going above the initial 35% (max breakaway thrust recommended is 40%). I turned onto the taxiway north. We continued on taxiway A around to the north end of the terminal to the departure runway.


Second narrative: I was a relief pilot on this flight; seated in the second observer's seat for pushback. I observed a prudent taxi out from the gate area; in compliance with SOP.


Synopsis: B747 flight crew reported they were advised they had jet-blasted a baggage container across the ramp even though they stayed within SOP breakaway thrust levels.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine Starting System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was prepping the aircraft for a Borescope Inspection of the left engine. I pulled the Engine Start Circuit Breakers (C/B) as per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) to make the aircraft safe prior to performing the maintenance task; but forgot to collar the Circuit Breakers. I went to the cockpit to check the temperature of the left engine from the EICAS. I pulled the Breakers (C/Bs) as required by the AMM for safetying the engine for maintenance; but then got involved in removing the cowlings; shifting equipment and cooling the engine to below required minimum temperatures to enable the borescope to occur. I did not return to the cockpit to attach maintenance 'Do Not Close' C/B collars as I should have. The only response is follow procedures as outlined in the AMM. The task in the AMM states to pull the required Circuit Breakers/install safety collars.




Synopsis: Mechanic was informed he failed to collar the Left Engine Start Circuit Breakers (C/B) he had previously pulled while prepping an EMB-145 aircraft for a Boroscope Inspection.
Date: 201811
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two lithium ion batteries found in equipment. One was a laptop computer with the battery attached; and another piece of equipment also had the battery still attached. None of these were declared on the Air Way Bill nor was the required labels attached to the outside of the packaging.




Synopsis: Ground agent reported Lithium Ion batteries were found attached to equipment during shipping.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inside of 250 miles to DEN; we were filed for the PURRL2 STAR and DEN was landing to the north. Initially briefed the ILS to Runway 35L. Enroute to BOWEE; Denver Center advised that the southern corridor was closing and rerouted us direct to PUFFR for the KOHOE 3. ATIS said that Denver was still landing north. We then changed the approach to the RNAV/RNP Runway 35R and briefed the RNAV. During the briefing Denver once again changed the arrival to the WAHUU2 RNAV Arrival. ATIS still said Denver was landing north and we queried Denver Center and they said they expected a runway change. Based on that information we briefed the approach to Runway 16L due to the shorter taxi. Enroute to GRRUB and cleared to descend via; ATIS said that Denver was only landing Runway 16R and 17R. We changed the runway for the fourth time inside 250 miles (in this case approximately 50-75 miles from the field) and when the runway was changed; the arrival didn't sequence properly so we pulled heading and tried to go direct to KOKOO. Denver Center queried us on our heading and we told him 265 and he asked why we were on a heading. We told him the FMS was not sequenced properly due to multiple arrival and runway changes. He directed us to pickup a heading of 270 and to descent to 12000. We maintained this heading until we were passed on to Denver Approach who vectored us to the visual for 17R. It becomes difficult for all parties involved with the weather in Denver and I know that Denver Center and Approach are working hard to minimize changes once we are assigned a STAR; but four runway changes and three STAR changes are difficult even under the best of circumstances. The First Officer and I discussed what we could have done differently and we both agree that we should have been proactive in letting Denver Center know that we were having difficulties and needed a heading even though the deviation was minor. Additionally; the multiple arrival changes when vectored inside the VIA highlight the need for no transition fix on the approach.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into DEN following multiple changes to arrival procedure and runway assignment.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SZP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SZP
ATC / advisory: CTAF SZP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An aircraft crossed the runway while our aircraft was on approach. Our aircraft touched down on the runway while the other aircraft was directly in front of us. We applied heavy brakes and was too late for a go around. Fortunately the other aircraft crossed the runway quickly and we were able to avoid impact. My wingtip was very close to the other aircrafts tail section.Santa Paula airport does not have a control tower. The weather was clear and there were no physical obstruction of our view. Both occupants in our craft were not injured in the incident.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported taking evasive action while landing to avoid collision with aircraft crossing runway at non-towered field.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: AG-CAT Turbo
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 137
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was inside of aircraft while being fueled by a single point fueling system. When gas gauge read full; I told the loader to stop fueling. Once fueled I departed from airport with 2 hours of fuel. As I attempted my Ag operations I experienced fuel starvation within 40 minutes of flight. I was able to safely land aircraft on highway with only slight wingtip damage from a road sign. I was able to get the aircraft off of the highway and escorted by local police to nearest farm house where I was able to refuel and make a safe take off. It was later determined that my gas gauge was giving false readings.




Synopsis: AgCat pilot reports departing with fuel gauge reading full; to run out of fuel 40 minutes into the flight. A safe landing on a highway ensues with minor damage to the aircraft. Fuel gauge was inaccurate.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On approach we were level at 6;000 FT cleared for the ILS 16L. With the LOC captured the airplane also gave us GS* [glideslope acquire]. As the PF was setting Go Around Altitude; we both noticed the Glide Slope jump 1 dot above. The plane began to add power to climb to the Glide Slope. The PF selected a vertical descent of 300 to stop the Climb. The plane's peak altitude was 6;260 FT. We rearmed the glide path and proceeded on the approach. Initially we attributed this to a distance of 28 miles. Proceeding further down glide path we noticed descent rates of 200 to 1;400 FPM. We asked the Controller about any spurious glide slope reports for 16L. He initially responded that there were no reports of spurious glide path. The Controller came back a minute or so later to respond that Tower was crossing airplanes across the ILS critical area from 16L to 16C on the C taxiway. Makes sense. Suggest Tower write a NOTAM when they are doing simultaneous approaches with a scattered layer obscuring the airport advising us of a spurious glide path.


Second narrative: Although we had the instantaneous 'Dog looking at the TV stare.' Call outs were made by me the PM and action was taken by the PF the Captain. We were paying total attention to the situation and monitoring the approach on the final phase like we were supposed to do. Suggest Tower write a NOTAM when they are doing simultaneous approaches with a scattered layer obscuring the airport advising us of a spurious glide path.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew experiences an unstable glideslope during approach to Runway 16L at SEA. It is ultimately determined that the Tower is crossing aircraft to depart Runway 16C which is causing the instability.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb; while conducting the anti-ice test; the crew noticed a burning odor; consistent with an electrical smell. The Flight Attendant reported the smell concentrated toward the front of the aircraft. After waiting a few minutes; the odor persisted; so the decision was made to [notify ATC] and divert to ZZZ. No visible smoke was detected. Identification: crew detection. Cause: possible electrical abnormality with the windshield heat. After landing; a review of the maintenance logbook showed that the aircraft had been written up for the same issue approximately 3 weeks earlier with no fault found by Maintenance. Response: [notified ATC]; aircraft diverted; Dispatch and Maintenance notified. Suggestion: according to the maintenance logbook; after the previous smoke event; there was no action other than a functional check. I would think it prudent to visually inspect the item in question to check for evidence of burning.


Second narrative: Upon reaching FL180 I executed the climb checklist. As this was the first flight of the day we conducted the Ice Protection Test per the checklist. Almost immediately after starting the test we observed a strong smell of electrical components overheating. While I believed the source of the odor was a result of the anti-ice system I was not sure. I called the flight Attendant who immediately indicated that she smelled it. I instructed her to walk through the cabin and see if she could pinpoint the odor. When she returned to phone she mentioned that it was coming from the front. By this point the smell had not gotten worse; but it hadn't necessarily gotten better; so we elected to divert. We never saw actual smoke and after discussing it the FO and I elected not to don mask with the thought that if it grew worse we would. We divided task and prepared the aircraft for arrival. We landed without incident and had ARFF confirm there was no visible fire before proceeding to the gate.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported cabin crew advised of electrical burning smell in forward cabin area during climbout. Flight crew elected to divert.
Date: 202112
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X had a #2 Engine inflight shutdown to Airport Code ZZZ1 on DATE.   ZZZ Maintenance sent a crew to ZZZ1 to replace the HMU (Hydro-Mechanical Unit); fuel pump; filters; etc.Prior to the flight an operations check sheet log states the #2 Engine will not light off.   Crew reported Spar Valve circuit breaker (C/B) popped.   The aircraft was Trouble Shot and the flight crew write up did not mention the C/B popped.   Per the sign off the Fire Handle was cycled.




Synopsis: Technicians reported being dispatched on a road trip to replace the HMU and other components on a B737-800; they discovered a popped circuit breaker and reset the fire handle; correcting the malfunction.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to 26L into IAH I had an RA flag for about 5 seconds at 8;300 ft. just outside ZAPPO intersection it was only the First Officer side I reported it to ATC and no other failures or issues were noticed on the approach after. This was the second time this happened to me on this same approach; it was a different aircraft as well.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Check Pilot reported an erroneous RA from the First Officer's radio altimeter while on approach to IAH. The Captain stated this was the second such event and in a different aircraft.