elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When we landed; we were supposed to have one more leg then a 14 hour overnight. I have a voicemail from scheduling; now I'm flying to ZZZ for the overnight; a longer flight; but it wasn't a big deal to me. When I got the chance to look at my schedule I saw under Leg 4. 'ATREST ZZZ XI:15' The Report time on my pairing was XH:30. I had never seen 'ATREST' for a leg in my schedule before; so I asked the Captain about it and he called scheduling after arrival. He confirmed that our show time will be XH:30; so we agree on a XH:15 van. We go to our rooms; but all 3 of our rooms were already occupied (probably by our crews who's night's just got messed up by us barging in on them sleeping). We all went back to the lobby and got rooms on another floor and free breakfast coupons. I set my alarm for XG:30am. By the time I got to bed it was XA:00 am at least. At XE:30 am my cell phone goes off and I wake up right away assuming that it was my alarm and it was XG:30. It was scheduling calling; 3 hours before my show time; on a reduced rest overnight. I was pretty upset. By XF:30 I was probably half asleep and they call again. I was more upset. I had just missed out on 2 hours of sleep on an already short overnight. The threat was the lack of sleep; and I would say that was entirely caused by scheduling. My original trip had a 14 hour overnight; then I got reassigned to a short overnight; then THAT got even shorter by repeated calls from scheduling.




Synopsis: A pilot reported how scheduling changes; hotel issues and calls from crew scheduling disrupted his rest period.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ3
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ2
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial approach; I experienced engine/mechanical problems and decided to immediately switch airports and land.  My left engine was experiencing problems so I requested vectors direct.  Then I advised ATC and flew directly to the approach end of the runway.  I landed uneventfully; and we are troubleshooting the aircraft to determine the reason for the left engine failure.




Synopsis: Baron pilot reported experiencing engine failure during descent.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; 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: After landing; the Ramp Agent notified us that the wheel chair that was on board happened to be an electric one with the batteries still connected. Our GOM (General Operations Manual) mentions that they are not allowed because of size and weight; the one we had on board was 45 [pounds]; we are awaiting more information on the model of the wheel chair and the type and size of the batteries; as there are some restrictions to them as well.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported an electric wheelchair was transported with batteries connected in violation of GOM.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR conditions prevailed during arrival into EWR. [We were] taken off of the FMQ RNAV arrival and given vectors for spacing and sequencing to the west of EWR for a landing on Runway 4R. Flying at 5000 ft; autopilot on and approx. 190 kts assigned; we were turned from a downwind to base heading. Approx 15-20 nm southwest of the airport we were given a traffic warning message from ATC 'Traffic 1 o'clock; 5500 ft and closing; may be descending'. The Capt and I spotted a single engine low wing aircraft (Cherokee) approximately 300-500 feet above and trying to turn away from us. Almost no time was available to take action; no deviations or changes in automation occurred. ATC stated that aircraft had inadvertently flown into the Class B airspace. We never received a traffic proximity warning as the TCAS was [on] MEL. During pre-departure briefing and during all flight phases we discussed the TCAS outage and ensured we were actively looking for traffic during all phases of flight. No further actions or occurrences were encountered.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a NMAC with a light aircraft on arrival into EWR.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCI.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower MCI
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our takeoff roll on Runway 19R in MCI; we had an EICAS r side window alert message displayed. I called for the reject at approximately 50 kts. We informed the tower we were rejecting; that we didn't need assistance and requested somewhere to park for a few minutes. I called for the after landing checklist and once completed called for the rejected takeoff checklist in the QRH. Because it was a low speed abort we didn't have a brake cooling time to contend with. Once that checklist was complete I directed my First Officer to run the r side window checklist in the QRH. Executing that checklist cleared our issue. After a short debrief and answering a few questions from my First Officer I then asked him if he saw any reason why we couldn't depart. He agreed that we could depart. I then called for the before takeoff checklist and also briefed what we may see during our takeoff roll. The tower cleared us for another takeoff and shortly after V1 we received another r side window EICAS alert message. Once we had completed the after takeoff checklist I stated to my First Officer that I have the aircraft; the radios and asked again for the r side window checklist in the QRH. This procedure rectified our issue once more and we pressed on to ZZZ for an uneventful flight. I entered the write ups in the AML and also sent an ACARS message to Maintenance en route about our issue so they would have a heads up upon our arrivalComponent failure of the R side window system.Unfortunately this type of event can't be prevented as mechanical things; sooner or later; break.




Synopsis: Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to a right side window warning message.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CKB.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CKB
ATC / advisory: Tower CKB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During the approach and landing phase at CKB both myself as the PM and the PF noticed the autopilot having a difficult time tracking the ILS on RWY 21. The winds were not a factor considering they were steady state with little to no crosswind the cloud layer was 1000 OVC. We allowed the autopilot to try to stabilize on the ILS while we were outside the FAF; allowing the autopilot to command several s-turns to either side of the inbound course while it tried [to] chase the LOC course dot; which was deflecting a dot either side of desired track. The PF decided to disconnect the autopilot and hand fly the approach using the raw data on the ND in Arch mode and the approach was continued in a stabilized manner using this mode. The FD; LOC and GS; on the PFD continued to show erratic tendencies as the LOC/GS deviation displays. As the PM I was keeping close attention to the terrain on my ND and watching visually outside with 75% visual of the terrain. I noticed the FD continued to command corrections trying to chase the erratic LOC/GS deviations; including a pitch down while over the high terrain bluff on about a mile final; a potential dangerous situation if flown with a coupled approach down to minimums. While talking to the agents in the airport they confirm they had heard other pilots talking about irregular behavior with the ILS 21. We departed CKB and flew a coupled ILS 9L there and noticed no irregular behavior with the aircraft; which furthers my thought that there may be something wrong with the CKB ILS 21 Navaid/Approach. Have the ILS flight checked to see potential sensitivity and interference problems. Possibly request other feedback from pilots flying the approach into CKB. Possible memo to pilots on the potential for irregular tracking of the ILS using automation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving erratic signals from the CKB Runway 21 ILS while on approach in IMC. The crew disconnected the autopilot and the approach was completed uneventfully. Ground personnel mentioned to the Captain that several pilots referenced the irregular quality of the ILS signal at CKB.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was asked to supervise and show two mechanics how to properly install a number 8 main landing gear tire on a Boeing 767-300 aircraft. I showed the [mechanics] how to properly look up in the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) the procedures and tooling required and read through the AMM with them while a tire was being procured by our lead. I assisted the two [mechanics] in the process of removing and replacing the wheel assembly but failed to check the part number of the tire being installed. Having worked international line maintenance before; I am aware of the part number differences between the B767-300 and the B767-300ER tires. I feel that the distraction of training the two students; and assuming the lead AMT was providing me with the proper effective tire for the aircraft; distracted me from checking the part effectivity for myself. Then when entering the information into the log I again overlooked the fact that the wrong Part Number (PN) had been installed onto the aircraft. Though the incorrect tire was provided for me; ultimately I am responsible for the equipment that is being installed and signed for. I supervised and help[ed] perform the maintenance task; and signed off the aircraft maintenance log. I was unaware of my mistake until [about a month later] I was made aware of the discrepancy by the hangar shift manager and my lead; and was informed that the tracking system had logged the error in part effectivity and that I needed to sit and make a statement for the internal investigation into the matter. I brought my error to the attention of the two [mechanics] that I was training and emphasized the importance of checking PN effectivity with the aircraft that is being worked; regardless of who provides the part for them. I also explained that ultimately regardless of the situation; the mechanic performing and signing for the work is responsible for insuring the airworthiness and effectivity of the part being installed on the aircraft.




Synopsis: During a B767-300ER Service Check an incorrect wheel assembly was installed on the Main Landing Gear. A wheel assembly for a B767-300 non-ER was used.
Date: 201204
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was in charge of briefing the passengers in seats the Exit Row. I approached passenger in the row and asked that he review his safety card and that after his review I would ask him a question. He could not understand what I said to him. I continued trying to explain using hand signals etc. After several minutes I got the Purser. I was going to move the passenger but Purser spoke limited Spanish and got him to understand a little what we were trying to convey. I understand we are not supposed to deny passengers who do not speak English the right to sit in the exit row and it is written in several languages on the safety card but I do not agree. He could not understand me. How will he understand me any better when I am shouting out commands? How can he understand me when I am stuck in my jumpseat and shouting at him to get me out of my seat open the door etc. How can he understand when other English speaking people are asking him to help them? I agree that people who speak other languages should be able to sit in the exit row but one of those languages must be English. We do not allow any other language in the cockpit why would we allow it anywhere else where safety is a concern. Passenger must be able to understand the flight attendant's instructions clearly and be able to say yes clearly.




Synopsis: A B757 Flight Attendant reported that a non English speaking passenger was allowed to sit in an emergency exit row when he did not understand the questions regarding emergency exit operations.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on descent in to ZZZ; I the CA was PF.  We received a different runway assignment than anticipated.  We were cleared to 'cross ZZZZZ at 3;000 feet; cleared the ILS [Runway] XXR approach ZZZ.'  The runway change was made in the FMS from YYR to XXR.  While in VNAV path and cleared for the approach we set FAF Glideslope intercept altitude of 2;000 feet in the altitude window.  The last-minute change left us a bit high so we lowered the landing gear and selected LVL CHG in order to re-intercept the path.  ZZZZZ the IF was in the FMS twice and while trying to correct that and heads down and distracted (because we were no longer in VNAV) the aircraft descended through 3;000 feet towards the 2;000 feet set in the ALT window.  I caught the mistake at approximately 2;600 feet MSL and leveled off until intercepting the glide path.  There was no correction from ATC; no known traffic conflict etc.  Normal uneventful landing.  Upon further consideration I determined it was best to file a report.Cause - Short night; last minute runway change; lack of recency of experience...infrequent flying over the last year with the pandemic.PF [should] have better situational awareness and avoid both pilots being heads down even if the PNF is having difficulty correcting the FMS issue.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported an altitude deviation during approach caused by possible fatigue; a late runway change and lack of recent flying experience during the pandemic.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon landing at ZZZ; our right generator went offline.  We ran the QRH and were unable to get the generator working; so we taxied in on two engines.  There was one Marshaller and one Wing Walker at the gate.  When taxing in there was a cone inside the safety zone.  It was far enough away from the aircraft that I didn't think it was going to cause any trouble; so I continued to follow the Marshaller's directions.  When moving the condition lever from the ground idle position to the start position; the feathering of the prop caused the cone to be sucked backward into the propeller chopping off the top piece of the cone.  After calling in the generator failure and exiting the aircraft; I was told about the cone incident and notified Maintenance and Dispatch.  The ground supervisors where also aware of the situation.  No one was injured and there was no damage to the aircraft.  The event occurred because in the rush to get the flight in and get the generator fixed; I overlooked a hazard.  I would suggest all crews hold outside the gate until all items are moved outside the safety zone; no matter how benign they may look.  In the process of trying to stay on time; potential hazardous items may get overlooked.  We all need to ensure safety is our number one priority at all times.




Synopsis: A SF340 Pilot rushing into the gate for a generator repair feathered an engine as he entered the gate and it struck a pylon cone inside the safety zone.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ the aircraft locked onto a glideslope signal at around FL340 and started to climb. Took a couple of seconds to figure out what it was doing; but once I saw the G/S on the FMA was green (meaning it was locked on) it was clear the aircraft thought it should follow the glide slope so it started a climb. At that point the autopilot was disconnected and ATC was notified that we had a problem. All the automation was turned off and once the aircraft was stable in the descent the automation LNAV/VNAV etc.; was re-established. Aircraft landed safely in ZZZ and was turned over to Maintenance. They discovered that the FCC computer on the A side had tripped a fault code and placarded the autopilot A inoperative. Flew the Aircraft back to ZZZ on autopilot B with no issues.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported that an FMS malfunction resulted in an uncommanded climb during approach.