elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I briefed a practice RNAV 36L visual approach at MCO. When cleared for the visual approaching AMEBE at 3000 feet; flaps 5; 180 knots; I selected LNAV with Auto Pilot on. I then selected 500 Feet in the altitude window and VNAV. The aircraft captured LNAV and started to climb. After trying to figure out why it was climbing I disconnected the AP at 3250 feet to hand fly the approach. While getting the gear down and flaps extended tower asked if we could take a visual to 36R at approx. 1800 feet. I accepted and moved over. While the First Officer was looking up the ILS for 36R we missed the call/extension to 25 flaps. At the 1000 feet check we saw the flaps at 20 and executed a non eventful Go Around; approach and landing.When doing a visual and accepting a visual to a parallel runway both pilots should stay heads up until the landing check list is complete; then if time permits look up and tune the ILS.


Second narrative: Causes leading to the unstable approach:1. Autopilot and auto throttle system commanding an inappropriate climb in a critical phase of flight causing Pilot Flying to make large corrections and reverting to hand flying prior to plan.2. Runway change on final causing increased workload and distraction from the planned approach.3. Discussion of new checklist; (order and sequence).Bottom line; the RNAV approaches are problematic to say the least. When an experienced crew has aircraft control issues while trying to practice an RNAV approach in VMC and has these kind of results the system is flawed. VNAV in general does not work well in our 757s. Working 'OK' sometimes is not 'OK' in aviation. Attempting VNAV descents on SIDs and watching the airspeed exceed SID limits time after time proves the system is unacceptable for use. The school house says 'try it on the line; it works great'. On the line; we know that's not the case. I am concerned that our next accident or incident is going to be the result of a failed RNAV approach.


Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew reported executing a go-around after an unstabilized practice RNAV approach.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After application of takeoff thrust on Runway XXR; the left engine generator failed. The takeoff was rejected below 40 kts. Rejected takeoff procedures were followed as per flight manual SOP. No injuries or aircraft damage occurred. Maintenance [Technical Support Maintenance Control] was notified via voice and discrepancy was reported via ACARS. A return to the gate was necessary. Aircraft was taken out of service for Maintenance. Another aircraft was provided for flight to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a rejected takeoff after the Number 1 engine generator failed.
Date: 201808
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for the WLEEE 5 Arrival and expect the RNPZ 17L Approach. The First Officer briefed the arrival to join the approach at XWING for the RNP Z; but did not close the route until we were about to cross XWING. The automation error on both pilots was due to our misunderstanding of ATC instructions and anticipation of approach clearance from XWING. By the time we both realized our automation error; Approach Control directed us to turn right and climb to 3500 feet. We were vectored for the ILS 17L Approach to landing. On landing we called ATC on the phone and discussed what happened. Verify with Approach Control what their intentions are when we reached the IF for the approach/point on the WLEEE 5 arrival.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a track deviation occurred when the flight crew failed to properly program the FMC.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the cruise phase of flight; I encountered an oil pressure warning. I notified ATC who vectored me without incident back to my home airport. I did declare an emergency when asked by ATC. I was conducting a local IFR flight in order to maintain experience. Weather was VMC; broken at 2;000 FT with calm winds; so the conditions were great for some light IMC time.In March; I had conducted a flight review with an instructor where we had performed advanced IFR training such as partial panel approaches. At the time of the Flight in August; I was under the impression that this March flight review was an IPC whereas in fact my last IPC was in November 2012; so although I had done 6 IFR approaches in the 6 months (3 with an instructor) prior to August; I was actually not in compliance with FAR 61.57.




Synopsis: A non current IFR pilot on an IFR flight plan for currency declared an emergency because of an SR-22 oil pressure warning and discovered his lack of currency after landing.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Champion Citabria 7ECA
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The decision was made to land in a corn filed as I was getting low on fuel and daylight.No injuries and only very minor damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: With low fuel and fading daylight; Citabria pilot elects to land in a corn field with minimal damage.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying; we were being vectored for the ILS 4R into Newark. Approach told us to turn left heading 120 descend and maintain 2000. Next instructions were turn heading 090 direct GRITTY when able. Later; when he was clearing us for the approach he noticed we were passed 3000 and asked why were leveling at 2000. We told him that was the altitude assigned. He continued to clear us for the approach; and landed with no further incidents. Approach was clearing other aircraft down to 2000 so he may have meant to give us 3000 but cleared us to 2000 in error. There was no loss in separation. Possible solutions always verify ATC instructions if unsure; both Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring confirmed we heard descend and maintain 2000. But the frequency was very busy so instructions can be easily misheard.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving conflicting altitude assignment clearances from ATC during vectoring for approach into EWR.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We are not provided with proper sanitary equipment. No sprays or wipes; they give us 2 sanitary wipes for tractor work area equipment and also they are talking about consolidating piers putting people closer to each other.




Synopsis: Ramp employee expressed concern about Coronavirus related company procedures.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was leveling off at my assigned altitude of 6;000 ft just above the base of a scattered layer of clouds I saw a large black and silver object in my peripheral vision. I was able to catch a quick look at the object as it passed off my left wing. I would estimate the distance as having been approximately 10 ft from my wingtip. I had just exited a cloud when the object appeared; so there would have been extremely little time to take evasive action if it had been a bit further to my right. The object appeared to be a quad-copter style drone; and as previously mentioned it was black and silver/chrome. I immediately reported the object to ATC; and a nearby law enforcement aircraft went to investigate the area. The object did not strike my aircraft and the flight was completed with no further issues. Recommendation: Stricter enforcement of drone operation rules; perhaps drone manufacturers should include a pamphlet in each box describing the dangers associated with busy airspace.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew noticed and came within 10 feet of a UAS while at 6;000 feet.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 50
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream II (G1159)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cruising at FL400 when right engine rolled back. Turned ON ignition; engine would not re-light; [advised ATC]. Requested descent to FL300. Donned oxygen mask. Engine restarted about FL310; leveled at FL300. Requested a nearby airport for landing. Next day; drained several times some fuel from each wing tank sumps about 1-2 gallons each to find about a cup of water in the right fuel tank. No water was further found. Restarted both engine to find all is normal. Mechanic's belief is [the] water interrupted the fuel to the engine to cause a rollback.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: G1159 flight crew reported the #2 engine rolled back in cruise flight at FL400. Engine relight was successful after descent; and after landing about a cup of water was found after draining a few gallons from the right fuel tank.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Reverser Translating Sleeve
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This is to report on aircraft configuration.Aircraft X arrived ZZZ With #2 ENG inboard T-R sleeve completely missing both Kruger Flap fairing and deflector. They were never installed and the plugs were in place.




Synopsis: Technician reported that the Kruger Flap Fairing and deflector were not installed on the thrust reverser translating sleeve and the blank off plugs were in place.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Multiple aircraft were inbound to the D8 alleyway. The first one did not immediately go on their gate; causing the aircraft in-trail to back up and block Taxiway D. While these aircraft were impeding onto Taxiway D; buses were backing up; facing eastbound at the top of Terminal 2. These buses; I believe; were waiting to go into the D8 alleyway; but held out due to the stopped aircraft. After several minutes of the aircraft blocking the taxi lane; one bus; identified as Bus X on the ASDE-X; drove into the middle of the D taxi lane eastbound across D8 and toward D7 at a high rate of speed. Simultaneously; Aircraft X was taxiing parallel to this bus on E toward D7 and was going to 'double-back' at D7 onto D short of D8 due to traffic. Once I noticed the erratic bus; I keyed up to Aircraft X and suggested they hold position due to a 'rogue bus on the taxi lane that I was not [in] communication with and I was unsure of their intentions.' Aircraft X reported the bus in sight and stopped. City Operations also heard this transmission and reported they were enroute to see what was going on.Bus X then made a 180-degree turn in the middle of D at the D7 intersection and proceeded to drive westbound on D to the area they had just come from. I advised Aircraft X that the bus had appeared to clear the movement area and they could continue their taxi. Operations intercepted Bus X at this time toward the south end of the D8 alleyway; but I have no further information on how this incorrect use of the movement area was handled.This example was just another instance of buses continuing to operate in a manner that's completely contrary to the LAWA's Airport Rules and Regulations. Buses should not be operating on taxiways or in the middle of the D taxi lane at any time. I am once again recommending that the FAA address this critical safety issue with LAWA. The answer that I previously received to [a prior report] that the situation has been remedied is not the reality. While it may be the case that LAWA addressed the discrepancies with the bus drivers; they need to now police and enforce their policies because the rules are absolutely not being followed and users operating on the north complex are in jeopardy as a result.




Synopsis: LAX Tower Controller reported a rogue bus breaking regulations and causing problems on an airport alleyway.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LSZH.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have been into LSZH many; many times. This was the First Officers first ever trip to Europe as a pilot. Arrival here has ALWAYS been the same. BLM 2G to Gipol; then vectors to either ILS 14 or 34. This time we held at Gipol. No problem. After the first trip around the hold we were cleared to 'fly the transition to Runway 34'. We proceeded to fly the transition on LSZH page 11-4 from Gipol to KLO for the approach. A moment later ATC asked if we were flying the transition. I responded that we were. He stated we were going the wrong way and 'no problem; I'll vector you.' He then stated there is a RNAV transition we should have followed. We quickly found it but it was a little late for that. We landed uneventfully.A few things bother me about this. One; I missed the addition of this procedure at LSZH; that's on me; my mistake. Two; it would be really helpful if ATC had cleared us to fly a specific procedure instead of 'the transition.' There is a transition on the approach chart; but it is not what is expected. Three; this is an example of how information gets in electronic manuals unnoticed. I can guarantee you I would not have missed this with paper charts. I always made a note of changes at airports I visit regularly when we had paper. You could easily compare the old and the new. Not so easy anymore.Be careful and read everything. Even if you have done it before. Expect the unexpected.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain who had flown into LSZH on numerous occasions failed to note the addition of an RNAV Transition on the electronic chart for the approach. Crew followed ATC vectors after Controller pointed out their deviation from the published track. Captain attributes some blame to the automatic update of electronic charts which do not allow comparison of the old vs. new when updating.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear Ground Visability
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Piper Cub was repositioned approx. 10 feet from the tie-down. Following engine start and warm-up I started to move the Cub forward (I was repositioning to the fuel dock only).  As the Cub started to move forward the right wing of the Cub make contact with the left wing of a parked C-172.  The Cub then rotated to the right and made further contact with the left wing of the C-172; causing damage to both aircraft.




Synopsis: A Piper Cub pilot reports knocking wing tips with a parked C172 during taxi to the fuel dock. Both aircraft are damaged.