elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our takeoff roll at approximately 80-90 KTS we received the Aural CAWS Alert along with the Red Level 3 (FLAPS) indication on the EAD. I aborted the takeoff and then returned to the gate. The tug driver witnessed our slats-extended and flaps 5 setting just prior to taxiing out to the runway. Contract Maintenance also verified with much troubleshooting upon our gate return that upon extending our slats and flaps 5--this is exactly what correctly occurred outside and it's exactly what we saw on both of our PFD's (flaps 5)--which is exactly what we had programmed into both of our FMS/MCDU's (flaps 5 for takeoff). For the takeoff roll our EAD showed a hollow green box--however; Maintenance Control verified that either the flap transmitter indication was improperly indicating a different flap setting than everything else; [which] equals a flap split indication.




Synopsis: B717 Captain experiences a takeoff warning for flaps at 80-90 KTS and rejects. The flap setting appears to be correct and the flight returns to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback a speeding van; which ignored the wing walkers; cut behind the aircraft causing me to stop the aircraft to avoid damage. This resulted in the shear pin on the towbar breaking.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported breaking the pushback towbar pin after having to stop suddenly to avoid colliding with a van on the ramp.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower EGLL
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] given takeoff clearance approximately 30/35 seconds after a heavy B747.  [We] delayed takeoff for approximately 30 more seconds. Wind report was 280/7. Rough ride after takeoff 300 FT to 1;300 FT. [We] reported event to EGLL Tower. I thought EGLL provided a 1 minute minimum delay interval between heavy aircraft. They didn't. [They] should consider longer delays when winds are calm or straight down the runway.




Synopsis: B777-200 pilot reported encountering wake turbulence after takeoff from EGLL in trail of a B747. Pilot commented he felt separation standards were not followed by ATC.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A company Brasilia was [cleared to] taxi into position and hold. SFO Tower Controller asked if we were ok with lining up on the runway behind company; I said 'NO!' Unequivocally 'NO!' I believe after the Tenerife disaster; placing two planes on an active runway simultaneously at the same time was made illegal and is prohibited by 7110.65. Next; this Controller said; 'After departure; fly heading 010; hold short zero one right;' which was somewhat counterintuitive and seemed prone to encourage a runway incursion. He repeated this instruction after we queried him. We had a check airman in the jumpseat who was giving us a line check; and he also got upset at what the Controller was doing; and stated; 'What he's doing is trying to give someone a runway incursion.' In any event; both events are bad practices; and should definitely be addressed! Cause; poor and possible Controller deviation. Improper phraseology and application of procedures specified in the 7110.65 for Tower operations.




Synopsis: SFO Air Carrier departure voiced concerning regarding ATC's procedure and phraseology reference a takeoff clearance.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing at ZZZ; I overcorrected due to being far right of the center line. My overcorrection was applying too much rudder (with possible accidental brake application) to the left to get back to center. There may have been a chance that the right wheel touched down first; then the left which amplified my overcorrection.The aircraft then made a hard left across the runway; exiting into the grass just before Taxiway X. Upon exiting the grass and entering Taxiway X; the aircraft clipped a taxiway edge light with the left wheel strut. The light was destroyed.The aircraft then continued across Taxiway X and came to rest in the grass just off Taxiway X but still in the runway safety zone.I contacted tower and they dispatched ops/emergency to me. With their help we moved the aircraft back on to Taxiway X; and out of the runway safety zone. There I was able to examine the plane and find the damage to the fairing on the left wheel strut; and uneven wear on the tires from the application of the brakes. No other damage was found.I was able to taxi the aircraft back to the hangar on its own power without incident.Better human judgment could have occurred to apply smaller corrections when the aircraft is on the ground moving at a high rate of speed. Future training with my CFI will focus on understanding this incident better and learning from it. In addition to review of landings; so that in the future large corrections will not need to be made once on the ground.




Synopsis: C-172S Student Pilot reported loss of directional control on landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing after the second flight of the day; during shutdown noticed that transponder had been left on the previous flight's code assigned for flight following instead of having been set to XXXX which would have been appropriate for this flight conducted without flight following. The transponder is ADS-B; so there was still a unique identifier. The flight originated at ZZZ shortly after XApm when the Tower had shut early due to COVID. I am used to getting a flight following code from ZZZ ground; but did not this time because of the closure. Had I been at a normally uncontrolled airport; I would have followed my checklist for electronics; but I am so used to getting codes at ZZZ that I did not pay proper attention to that portion of the preflight/runup. Compounding this is that the transponder is new and less familiar than the one I have flown with for years; which actually would indicate more attention is needed. Always run through full electronics checks on startup and shutdown!




Synopsis: GA pilot reported inadvertently leaving the transponder code set from the previous flight. The pilot was accustomed to getting a code from the Tower; however the Tower had closed early due to COVID-19 hours and the pilot did not check the transponder.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SFO
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had just taken off from runway 01R at SFO and were assigned the NITE1 RNAV departure.  We entered the departure; route and arrival after receiving the clearance.   I was the pilot flying and shortly after takeoff the Flight Director commanded a left turn; which I followed.  The NITE1 turns slightly to the right on a 014 heading and then proceeds to MOSAY out of 520 feet.  I remember thinking that it was strange that the Flight Director was commanding a left turn when the Controller called and asked us to confirm that we were on the NITE1.  My First Officer responded with 'Yes.'  The Controller then came back with turn right to 020 degrees. We complied and continued on our trip. There was no traffic on Runway 01L which was fortunate.  We kept going over what went wrong as we were at cruise altitude. We had followed SOP when finishing the taxi checklist and confirming that the FMS and the runway we were taking were the same.  As to what I would do differently; I would be more vigilant in making sure the flight director is taking me where I want to go and not blindly following it.  I trust that this is a wakeup call for me to never become complacent.  I realize that is always a danger.  As to why it happened; as we continued our flight; the First Officer lost his FMC.  I don't know if that had anything to do with what happened or not.  It doesn't make sense that it would have.  Bottom line; fly the airplane to where it is supposed to go is first priority and never think that because you have the FMC telling you where you are going that it is correct.


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


Synopsis: After entering the correct runway and departure an Airbus flight crew followed the incorrect left turn indicated by the flight director on the NITE1 RNAV departure out of SFO. ATC issued a vector for a right turn back on course.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a routine flight we were given vectors by ATC to avoid a MOA.  Once cleared of the MOA; ATC gave us direct to a waypoint and then destination.  Upon punching in direct to the waypoint in the FMS; the airplane started to turn left to a heading of 211 degrees. Once it started the turn; I noticed something was wrong; and the FMS was showing that we where 3 miles south of the waypoint; and it seemed to be making a left turn to try and hit the point before going direct to destination. ATC immediately inquired why we were turning left in the direction of the area he just gave us vectors to get around.  I told him that we must have passed the intersection; and the plane wanted to double back to the point.  He then informed me; 'Negative; the intersection is twenty miles to your south; turn to a heading of 190.' So I did as he said; and that's when I had time to access the situation; and notice that the FMS GPS position was not correct. I think I know the reason why this happened.  When putting the information into the FMS I had put in our destination as our current location while on the ground.  After doing so I realized my mistake; put in the wrong intersections and waypoints on the flight plan in the wrong sequence.  Even though I had corrected the initial fix; I think that the FMS stored our current location as destination; making the airplane think it was still at the wrong airport.I have made a note of this; and have informed all our other pilots that if they plug in the wrong airport on initial FMS start up; then you must simply turn the box off; then back on to reset it; and start all over.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Learjet 35A mismanaged his onboard navigational equipment and lost situational awareness; culminating in heading and course deviations. ATC noticed his difficulty and provided radar vectors until he regained orientation and was able to proceed to his destination all by himself.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We took off with one generator on MEL. (I believe it was 24-20-01) Number 1 generator inoperative.  About 60 miles east of destination we got a low oil pressure Indicated Drive Director (IDG) 2 Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) which calls for IDG disconnect and subsequent 1 generator operation. I handed aircraft and radios to first officer after he checked to see if it was an immediate action item or ECAM exception. I did ECAM and disconnected IDG.  We were now down to single generator Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and I had the First Officer (FO) declare an emergency. The QRH had a follow-up but didn't add anything new.We thought that although the weather wasn't great at destination; there was really no better alternative and we were already set up to go in there. I contacted the Dispatcher and he agreed that was best.We requested runway 28R which was longer and quicker and it was approved. I also requested the equipment just in case.  We were given priority handling and landed uneventfully. The flight attendants were told to prepare for a normal landing. The equipment followed us to the gate uneventfully.We picked this aircraft up just as maintenance was MELing it for the inoperative IDG. The write-up in the logbook was IDG low oil pressure and I thought it very strange that here was the identical failure on the next flight for the other IDG. I just wonder if maybe the IDG's had not be serviced properly. Other than that I am not sure how to prevent this except maybe make generators unable to be on MEL.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports being dispatched with an inoperative generator (IDG low oil) with the APU generator operating. During descent the remaining engine driven generator Indicated Drive Director (IDG) indicates low oil and is disconnected. A normal landing ensues at destination.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were sent a CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications) that cleared us to CHS. Instead of using the load function we selected direct to CHS. ATC queried if we were going direct to CHS. We responded affirmative. He then informed us the clearance in the CPDLC was to CHS via FKN. We both missed the FKN part of the route clearance. Asked if he would like us to go direct to FKN then CHS he responded no. We looked at the CPDLC and both had misread the clearance. The verbiage on the CPDLC was in my opinion a little confusing and the FKN showed up on the bottom left of the page after 'CLEARED TO CHS.' FKN was not on our file route. We didn't hear any vectoring of other aircraft do to out flight path.


Second narrative: Upon reaching cruise altitude; we received a CPDL (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications) clearance that read in top line; 'cleared to CHS via route clearance'. Next line free text; 'Rest of route unchanged'. Next line free text 'Cleared to CHS via FKN CHS.'  As Pilot Monitoring; I read first and second lines and due to expectation bias; immediately told my F/O; 'Cleared to CHS'  I then went to next page and hit Send.  My First Officer went to LEGS page and pulled CHS to top and executed.  Both of us missed FKN inserted into new route clearance.  We were later questioned by ATC.  After rereading CPDL clearance; our error was clear.


Synopsis: A Flight Crew reported a route deviation due to confusion between the clearance issued by ATC versus what had been issued via CPDLC.