elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The aircraft briefly encountered a period of loss of braking and/or directional control on an icy taxiway during the turn onto the departure runway after being cleared for takeoff. Speed going into the turn was below 10 knots. The first sign of loss of control was lack of steering response. Directional and steering control was regained after a brief application of idle reverse thrust. Fortunately; the aircraft remained on the taxiway during the brief encounter. The Tower was notified of the area of poor/nil braking. The flight proceeded normally thereafter. One contributing factor to the encounter was my self induced time pressure to ensure our takeoff would be accomplished before our deicing/anti-icing holdover time would expire; considering the number of aircraft observed lining up for final approach for landing on the runway we would be using for takeoff. Upon reflection; I believe a few knots slower in the turn might have avoided the encounter altogether. Lesson (re)learned? Haste makes waste!




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences a momentary loss of control on an icy taxiway while turning on to the runway for takeoff.
Date: 201411
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Due to workload; and SABRE issues I've been behind all day; barely enough time to devote to flight following. At XA00 local; I had a 777 desk turn over to me. I had no idea what the workload was. I had approximately 15 flights in the air; I inherited another 15 flights in the air for a total of 30 flights in the air. I am scheduled to receive another desk at XC00; an additional 20 flights. Myself and all of the the dispatchers I work with are very concerned not only about workload; but the state of the tools that we are using. In my opinion we have been set up for a major failure. I am stressed and very concerned about safety. Can we do something before someone gets violated; or much worse PLEASE!




Synopsis: B777 Dispatcher laments the number of airborne flights the company expects him to monitor on a night shift.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I flew a Robinson R44 on a Part 91 personal flight from the helicopter pad with two passengers. Weather on the date of the flight included a local altimeter setting of 29.96; density altitude of 1;800 FT and light winds out of the southeast. During run-up; the helicopter's OAT gauge read 95 degrees Fahrenheit on the concrete helipad; and approximately 89 degrees over the grass. Nearby flags indicated winds directly out of the east at approximately 8-12 MPH. The helicopter's total weight on the incident flight was approximately 2;175 LBS. The R44's gross weight is 2;400 LBS. At the given weight and temperature; the R44 has a demonstrated ability to maintain a zero wind OGE (Out of Ground Effect) hover at approximately 3;000 FT AGL. In other words; the helicopter was operated well inside its published operating envelope. I performed a normal run up and all checklist items appeared normal. Upon takeoff; the helicopter developed insufficient climb power. I dropped off a passenger; and thinking the helicopter would now climb easily; entered a second maximum performance takeoff. The helicopter again developed insufficient power; but the engine did not miss; surge; backfire; or give any other indication of partial lack of power. Seconds into the flight; rotor RPM decayed and I entered an autorotation and made an emergency landing in a private front yard; having narrowly missed several houses and other obstacles.After the remaining passenger departed; the engine suddenly surged; then appeared to behave normally. As bystanders approached the aircraft from all directions; including the direction of the tail rotor; and fearing for their safety; I made the immediate decision to takeoff again. The helicopter performed perfectly on each subsequent flight. The cause of the loss of power has not yet been determined.




Synopsis: While apparently within temperature and gross weight limits; an R44 pilot experienced diminished engine power on liftoff. After removing one passenger; helicopter again developed insufficient power and pilot made an emergency landing in a private yard. On a subsequent takeoff with no passengers; the engine developed full power.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
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; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing at LGA; we received numerous taxi instructions and we thought we heard the Ground Controller tell us to to: 'Taxi B in.' At the time we were taxiing on B. As we approached A; I noticed there was an opposite direction Regional aircraft that was stopped on Taxiway A near the intersection of Taxiway M. As we began our turn into A; the Ground Controller told us to hold position and told us that he had not cleared us in; only to 'taxi via B.' We apologized and he told us to turn left back onto B. I had already shut down Number 2 engine and was not able to make the hard left turn that would have been required to get back onto B. I informed the Controller that we would have to restart the Number 2 engine to make the turn. (It should be noted that there was plenty of room for us to continue taxiing into the ramp as the opposite direction RJ was well clear of our inbound taxi route to the ramp).The Ground Controller then told us to turn right on A; right on K; right on B then right on A. Essentially; a 'penalty lap' for misunderstanding his original taxi instructions. Radio and traffic congestion along with slightly non-standard radio phraseology all contributed to this situation. (It would have been more clear for the Ground Controller to issue a clearance like 'Taxi via B...hold short of A or Taxi via B; right turn on A into the ramp.' I understand that due to the high volume of traffic; the Ground Controllers often truncate their phrases; but unfortunately that can sometimes lead to misunderstanding.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported communication problem with not understanding ATC non-standard phraseology.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; we encounter a HYD PRESS light (Hydraulic Pressure Light) and a STAB MISC light (Stabilizer Miscellaneous Light) with a GEAR UNLOCK light (landing Gear Unlock Light) when we tried to lift the gear up. We decided to level off at 10;000 ft and troubleshoot while getting vectors around ZZZ. We cycled the gear and got the stab misc light to extinguish. The gear would extend and lock but the hyd press light would stay on. We ran through the checklists for hyd press and gear unlock and determined we should divert to ZZZ1 and we could do so safely. We stayed at 10;000 ft and 200 kts. We said multiple times to Center and Approach controllers that this is NOT an emergency. ZZZ1 said it was protocol to have us use the longest runway and that they would roll the trucks.




Synopsis: CE560XL flight crew reported receiving multiple indication problems when trying to lift the gear. Flight crew decided to divert and land.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp SFO
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: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On pushback from gate.  After tow-bar removal and headset disconnect; we were starting engines.  I observed the marshaller standing in front of our aircraft giving the all clear signal with arms at 45 degrees; waiting for me to flash the taxi light.  However; the tug was still directly in front of our aircraft!  We could barely see the tug if we leaned forward in our seats; it was that close to our aircraft. I tried to point and gesture at the tug in my window; trying to let the ramper know that the tug was not clear of our aircraft.  The ramper did not figure it out; and gave me a salute; and walked to the tug.  I never flashed my taxi light at him.  If we had taxied forward with the position of the tug; our aircraft would have struck the tug for sure. Before we taxied; I called Ramp Control on the radio; and informed them of this unsafe practice by our push crew. Non-SOP procedures.  Unsafe practice.  Poor training.  Frequent occurrence.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Crew reported push back crew not following SOP.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed with two passengers. Upon engine start engine oil quantities were noted at 1 QT low on each engine. Takeoff and climb were uneventful. After leveling off at cruise we ran the cruise checklist and noted that the right engine oil quantity was now showing 4 QTS low after the 35 min time to climb to altitude. We continued to monitor the engine oil level and noted that it was dropping 1/2 QT about every 2-3 min. As a crew we made the decision that we would have to land and probably secure the right engine if the quantity didn't stop dropping. After hitting 7 QTS low we made the decision to divert to [a nearby airport] and started our descent. As we were descending the right engine oil quantity hit 8 QTS low triggering the amber Crew Alerting System oil level low right message. Because of the high rate of oil loss we made the decision to shut down and secure the right engine before it lost all of its oil. As we approached [the airport] we noted that the crosswind was approaching 15-20 knots so we elected to land at [a different nearby airport] with a 10;000 feet runway and only a 4 knot crosswind. [ATC was advised] enroute and equipment was standing by upon landing. Landing was uneventful and the aircraft landed safely with no known damage. Upon post flight inspection of the right engine excessive oil was found inside and all over the underside of the cowling. The oil cap was checked during preflight before departure and was found to be secure and in place upon inspection. Our passengers seemed very understanding and a recovery plane was in place within an hour.Unfortunately a mechanical issue that could not be forecast and was handled appropriately. [We] feel that we handled this properly and would not have done anything differently.




Synopsis: CE-750 Pilot reported an inflight engine shutdown and diversion to an alternate resulted from low oil quantity on right engine.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial climb-out we received a 'LE SLAT DISAGREE' EICAS message when flaps were selected to the 'up' position. We obtained delaying vectors from Departure Control while we executed the appropriate QRH checklist procedures; and then declared an emergency with the intent to return to our departure airport. We notified the company and local operations of the situation and our intentions then briefed the cabin crew and passengers.We entered holding in the local area at 10;000 FT in order to burn enough fuel so that the landing would be below maximum landing weight. Once the aircraft weight was below maximum landing weight; we executed an ILS approach in the configuration prescribed by the QRH. The landing was uneventful for the given conditions. Emergency vehicles were standing by. On arrival at the gate; I made a logbook entry and briefed Maintenance Control.




Synopsis: Following receipt of a LE SLAT DISAGREE EICAS message; a B757-200 flight crew declared an emergency; entered a holding pattern to burn fuel; accomplished the appropriate QRH procedures and landed without incident.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight originated in ZZZ with ZZZ1 as destination; original planned cruise was FL230.Upon reaching cruise level we were in IMC and light to moderate turbulence; a request was made for higher cruise level.After leveling off at FL270 we were on top of the layer and smoother air; a few minutes later we had an indication that #3 fuel computer had failed and proceeded to follow POH procedures to attempt a reset; that required bringing the affected engine to idle before cycling the fuel computer control switch. While we were in the process to reset the computer there was an advisory message on the FMS regarding an out of trim condition; before attempting to re-trim the aircraft I disengaged the auto pilot to ascertain the condition; while re-trimming we started to encounter that the tops of the clouds below were in fact rising to our current cruising fl and encountered a sudden but brief increase in turbulence from nil to moderate so the aircraft was pushed upwards about 500 feet before I could correct it without a violent maneuver as we had passengers; ATC requested a confirmation of our current flight level and we advised that we were returning to FL270.The flight proceeded to ZZZ1 without further complication or comment from Controller.As the turbulence encounter occurred while the autopilot was disengaged and the sudden change in flying conditions (from smooth to moderate turbulence) Except for the use of more aggressive maneuvering the altitude excursion was in my opinion almost unavoidable.




Synopsis: Falcon 900 pilot reported that a fuel computer failed followed by an out of trim advisory message. They disengaged the autopilot to respond to the problems and encountered turbulence that caused an altitude excursion.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the pilot flying. Received a clearance shortly after level off to precede direct PGS. I entered it in the FMC; verified with non pilot flying (NFP) and executed. As workload permitted I added the fixes from the flight plan for abeam point monitoring; again verifying with NFP. (I used the plan mode on Nav screen and saw no anomalies. (Abeam fixes were KD51U and KD42Q).Over an hour later; ZDV complained that it appeared we were about 5 degrees off course to the north and asked us to verify. I re-entered PGS direct and found that the Controller was correct. The abeam points were not in a straight line with the direct course. To my knowledge we followed correct procedures; however the abeam points were a few degrees off. The Controller did not seem upset; nor were we aware of a conflict.Since a long distance was involved; a few degrees of course change between points on the FMC did not alarm me. I thought the abeam points were using great circle course.




Synopsis: A flight crew on a NRS (Navigational Reference System) flight plan was issued a clearance direct to a distant NAVAID then entered NRS abeam points which caused a five degree track deviation.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During acft receipt at a fixed jetway the aircraft was determined to be approximately 8 to 12 inches too far forward of the parking mark. Ground crew established verbal contact and coordinated with the cockpit crew to push the aircraft back to the correct spot. After the initial attempt to set the aircraft on the mark; the ground crew communicated that they would have to attempt the movement again and proceeded to tell the Captain to release the brakes. When I released the brakes; the aircraft began moving backwards and after about 1.5 feet; the ground crew said; 'Ground to Cockpit; set brakes'.Then the ground crew advised us that we would have to release the brakes so that he could pull us forward. At this point; I asked the ground crew if we had been attached to the tug when he had previously instructed us to release the brakes. He informed us that we were NOT in fact attached; so we therefore had experienced an uncommanded movement of the aircraft. At this point; the final attempt to bring the aircraft to the parking mark was only undertaken after I specifically inquired as whether the aircraft was secured to the tractor.


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


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported ground personnel advised them to release brakes when they were not connected to a tug and the aircraft rolled backwards.