elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This report is related to a safety concern over mPilot training and information in the Training Bulletin. In the spirit of potential safety problems; this report is being submitted.First and foremost; the mPilot training that was issued as a CBT was good; but did not cover much of the information listed on the 16 question test required by the company at it's completion. An example is a question relating to where to find the ARINC map in the mPilot app. This information is crucial; and is not covered in the CBT. It could be the difference between making a prudent informed decision regarding an ill or dying passenger with medlink and making a poor uninformed decision. This is just one example.Along the same lines; the training bulletin published by the company makes reference to time critical information that takes several steps to locate within the app. One example is the Inoperative Component Table for adjusting approach minimums. If you follow the guidance of the Training Bulletin; it takes at least six steps to locate this time critical information. Another example is the Cold Temperature Correction Table. It takes several steps to reach; can be bookmarked; but will drop the bookmark if there is a revision to the cycle. Filing for an Alternate info also suffers from complicated steps to locate it as does the aforementioned ARINC frequency map.In addition to all of this; as we all know the Lido product is complete with a reinvention of charting philosophy; location of pertinent info; phraseology; different terms (as mentioned in the same training bulletin); and new acronyms that in some cases have different meanings than their Jeppessen counterparts. I'm trying to picture some of our new hires and current pilots navigating this product based on the company's provided training and it is unnerving. Even our most professional and seasoned pilots will balk at finding some need-to-know information.Let's not have another flight ops 'hiccup'. It's one thing to have software that may cause delays or cancellations and an airplane stuck at the gate. It's quite another to have 'hiccups' in pilot tools and resources to be used from the time the plane pushes back to when it parks again. Please reevaluate the product's navigability and the training involved in validating pilots.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot stated that the training provided by the company for the new Lido app for the iPad; was inadequate and that critical information often requires too many keystrokes to bring up.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing TEB Runway 24 on the RUUDY 4 departure; the pilot flying began a left turn at approximately 400 FT AGL; following the command bars. The pilot not flying questioned the reason for the turn and the pilot flying began a turn back to the desired course. The heading change was about 20 degrees to the left before it was reversed. ATC questioned the reason for the left turn; and the pilot not flying replied that it was a mistake. The flight continued to it's destination without further difficulty. Upon arrival at the destination line service advised that ATC wanted a phone call to discuss our TEB departure. The PIC made the call and was advised of a possible pilot deviation. PIC notified the Assistant Chief Pilot of the event. FMS vertical and lateral modes were verified as per checklist requirements prior to departure; with LNAV selected. Pilots must have a mental picture of the departure profile to prevent course deviations in the event of erroneous flight guidance information.


Second narrative: FMS vertical and lateral modes were checked as per checklist prior to departure; with LNAV selected departing TEB Runway 24 on the RUUDY 4 departure. After takeoff; climbing through 400 FT; the command bars indicated a left turn. The command bars were initially followed. Pilot not flying questioned the turn and the pilot flying quickly returned to the desired course. The heading change was about 20 degrees to the left before it was reversed. ATC questioned the reason for the turn; and the pilot not flying replied that it was a mistake. The flight continued to its destination without further difficulty. Upon arrival at our destination; line service advised that ATC wanted a phone call to discuss the event. PIC called ATC and notified the Assistant Chief Pilot of the event.


Synopsis: A First Officer mistakenly followed a flight director left turn command after a TEB Runway 24 RUUDY 4 takeoff; but the Captain alerted him so that he turned to the correct heading as ATC took note of the error.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: To my surprise we now deice at the FBO in the 'Deice Pad GA'; vs the deice pad at the end of [Runway] 28R. 1. The area is not that large. It's sized for general aviation.2. As configured this day; a 180 degree turn was required.3. As you might guess there is snow on the ground. So most markings are not visible and it's slippery. 4. The vendor prepositions their two trucks in the small area.  So when you enter the pad; you are taxing the aircraft towards one truck with a guideman in the bucket and there is another truck off your left wing. Both trucks are moving also. Then you swing a left 180 making sure you are not skidding; not going to hit a truck with your right wing and then stop the jet so you run into the truck that is not positioned in front of you. Whoever evaluated this as a viable procedure did not take into account the size and conditions (snow) as well as the truck positions.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the new area being used for de-icing presented several safety hazards; including a slippery surface and a small area for maneuvering the aircraft.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While climbing out of SLC via the LEETZ 6 departure we encountered either wake turbulence from the aircraft ahead or severe environmental turbulence. The auto pilot disengaged and while hand flying the aircraft trying to keep the aircraft under control we missed the initial fix; PPIGG; by approximately 1.5 to 2 miles. SLC departure queried us and advised we were off the departure. They issued a heading to rejoin the departure and nothing more was said of the situation. There was no loss of separation from other aircraft. It was a VMC day so we were never in danger of terrain contact with all of that in full view.In hindsight; we should have advised ATC of the encounter with turbulence and let them know we had to deviate to get the aircraft under control. We were so preoccupied with dealing with the situation that we never advised ATC of our actions.




Synopsis: C525 Captain reported a track deviation during climb from SLC when they were distracted by turbulence or a wake vortex encounter.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X called up VFR about at 9000 or 9500 feet to pick up an IFR clearance. He was radar identified and issued clearance with a descent down to his requested altitude of 7000 feet and then shortly after given a communications changes. After we were relieved from the sector we were called back to be learn that the aircraft had entered the northern section of a 7200 foot Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) and was not in communication range of either sector since their frequencies are highly marginal between these two airports. Although; another sector was able to relay quite quickly through another aircraft and issue the safety alert and climb.We have to constantly work as a team and help each other ensure that operations are safe at all times and avoid getting complacent. Alaska is filled with large areas where small aircraft even when flying IFR are unable to talk to ATC and in some cases there is no way to establish radio contact with the pilot. This situation was not a super busy session at all and should have been easily caught by one of us on the sector; which none did. We must never let our guard down and constantly double and triple check what trainees are issuing to these aircraft.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller with a trainee issued a descent to an aircraft which was below the Minimum IFR Altitude for its route.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being pushed back from the gate and cleared to start engines we noticed the Blue System Jam light had illuminated on the SERVO CTL panel. We completed the start sequence and I informed the push back crew we had a problem and asked them to hold on. During this exchange I could barely hear the tug driver due to excessive engine noise. I asked him to position the Mic closer to his mouth. At this point we turned our attention to the Jam light. We contacted maintenance and following their trouble shooting procedures (cycling Jam switch on/off while moving controls) we were successful in fixing the problem. Jam light extinguished. We were now ready to Taxi. I turned the Taxi light on; scanned my side of the airplane announcing it clear; released the parking brake; and began to apply power. I immediately heard the ground crew calling me on the intercom. I quickly stopped what I was doing. I do not think the airplane moved thanks to the quick response by the tug crew. The tug was not connected. I asked the driver if everything was ok and he said yes. The tug crew then cleared off on my side and we continued our taxi. I forgot I requested the tug crew to remain in place while we addressed our problem. I believe this can be prevented by creating a reminder (e.g. a cup; twist tie; etc.) on the throttles. Since keeping a tug crew in place is not the normal habit pattern better briefing between aircrew would have focused greater attention on the fact the pushback crew was still in front of the aircraft.




Synopsis: A300 Captain experiences a maintenance issue during pushback and asks the pushback crew to standby. The problem is quickly resolved but the Captain forgets the crew is standing by and attempts to taxi. The pushback crew quickly informs the Captain of their presence and no damage or injuries result.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At FL380; between PNH (Panhandle) and ZUN (ZUNI); received ATC Fault and GPS EICAS. Ran QRH. Faults did not clear. Contacted ATC. Jamming confirmed by ATC. Passing ZUN; ATC Fault and GPS malfunctions cleared. No further problems remainder of flight. Submitted AML (maintenance log) entries for ATC Fault and GPS EICAS at ZZZ1 in accordance with FOM. Possible jamming from White Sands.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPS EICAS alert related to possible jamming from White Sands.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout through 4;000 feet; the flight attendants in the aft cabin called to say they had a strong electrical odor in the back of the aircraft. In less than a minute; we smelled it in the cockpit. We donned the O2 masks and ran the Smoke/Fumes checklist. [Advised ATC] and received clearance to return to ZZZ. Shortly into the checklist; the flight attendants in the back called again to say they were still getting the strong effects of the electrical odor. We landed ZZZ; and taxied to the gate to deplane.


Second narrative: After takeoff into IMC conditions and at approximately 3;500 feet in a climbing left turn; the Flight Attendant broke sterile cockpit to notify us pilots that there was a strong electrical fire fume smell. I was First Officer and was pilot monitoring so I took the FA's (Flight Attendant) call. I told her I will tell the Captain. I told him but as I was in process; we both confirmed we smelled it too. I said 'Smoke/Fumes' IMMEDIATE ACTION CHECKLIST' and we donned our O2 masks as I grabbed the QRH to run the checklist. The Captain called for flaps up and after takeoff checklist so I paused from QRH to clean up the aircraft from takeoff and run the after takeoff checklist. The Captain was pilot flying and took radios and [advised ATC]for electrical fumes. ATC vectored us to ZZZ. I programmed new airport in FMGC; answered message to Dispatch; got landing data etc. Then Captain briefed approach; we did descent checklist and I then became pilot flying while Captain completed the Immediate action checklist and QRH.We did not have smoke; only strong electrical fumes. Then FAs called and said their eyes were burning. We got our vector to intercept and cleared ILS to maintain 5;000 feet until ZZZZZ maintain 170 knots to ZZZZZ1. Then FA's called again to say they were feeling really sick. Captain said we were almost there. The TCAS displayed We were behind an aircraft landing ZZZ. Weather was about 200 feet above minimums. We were IMC in rain the entire flight. We landed and taxied to the gate and deplaned.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported flight attendants detected fumes on climbout; returned to departure airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taxiing into the gate; the visual docking system was reading STOP" but the marshallers were continuing to wave us in.  Stopped and called OPS who said they were looking into it.  Marshallers continued to wave us in.  Had to call OPS again; who said they weren't sure if it was working.  We advised them to turn the system off so we were not receiving conflicting information; and after several minutes of all the marshallers trying to wave us in; one of them finally went over and reset/turned off the system.  We discussed the situation; and being good daylight visibility; taxied in using the marshallers only. This is not the first time I've had conflicting information between ground crew and the system; usually with the display advising "STOP".  I am not Seattle based so don't see the system every day but I have used it fairly often; and I think we are just setting ourselves up for potential issues if we get in the habit of not trusting or ignoring the system sometimes and relying on it other times.  The system should either be working and used or completely off when we're relying on marshallers."




Synopsis: During taxi into the gate; airline pilot reported receiving conflicting directions from the marshaller and the automated docking system.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had landed Runway 28. Crossed 27L and was holding short of 27R; note it being the long Runway in Atlanta. It was a very busy day; especially with deicing. After a plane was cleared for takeoff on 27R; it lifted off somewhere halfway down the Runway or before. Before the plane was barely off the ground; still not far down the Runway; were cleared to cross at intersection T. I read it back; scanned the Runway and noticed the plane taking off had just lifted off; 100-200 ft.; maybe; and was still not even close to our intersection; maybe S or U intersection; taking off west. I hit the breaks after we passed the hold short line seeing this. The captain inquired and I said 'it hasn't crossed yet'. After what felt like 5-7 seconds it passed and we continued without incident. In the moment I believed this compromised safety and possibly was a Runway incursion because the plane taking off had not passed us yet. I believe the pace Atlanta needed to keep up with to get planes moving caused this premature clearance to cross. They were telling planes to read back call signs only; which I didn't hear until after the clearance was given. I would probably scan before starting aircraft movement and keep my attention on the radio to keep better situational awareness.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a runway crossing clearance while another aircraft was on take off roll and had yet to pass the crossing intersection.