elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03; Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on right base to Runway 36R; heading 270 assigned vector by Approach Control; we began flying through extended center line of RWYs 36R/36C. Attempted to contact Approach several times for clearance to final with no response. Contacted Tower on 119.7 and was given vector back to airport and clearance for visual approach to 36R. Tower then said to switch back to Approach as 'he wants to talk to you.' We switched back to 125.8 and Approach gave us a clearance for visual approach to 36R. When we asked if there had been a problem with the transmitter; explaining that that is why we contacted Tower; the response was 'you shouldn't have done that; we were in a briefing.' We were then instructed to contact Tower again. There was no conflict with any other air traffic during this incident.Unknown cause. We only know that we attempted to contact Approach on 125.8 with no response; then later Approach implied that there was never a problem with their communications.


Second narrative: We were flying downwind vector for Runway 36R. Approach Controller had us turn to heading 270 for a right base. We were about 9 miles from the field and 3000 ft. MSL. We continued on our heading and realized we were going to fly through approach course. We attempted to contact the controller numerous times with no answer. As we continued on the heading; we completely passed the airfield. We finally called tower on 118.7 and told the controller our situation. The tower controller gave us a turn and we proceeded back to the field. Tower then handed us to approach again. We told approach we switched due to no contact with them; despite numerous attempts. We then were passed back to tower and cleared to land on 36R. We could not get a reply from approach after numerous attempts.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported of flying through the approach course; attempting to contact Approach. No response; so they changed to Tower frequency and got vectored back on to final. Approach Controller told pilots they should not have switched to Tower frequency. Controllers stated they were in a briefing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out of PHX while on assigned heading passing through 13;000 ft.; felt large jolt/bump as if we hit something followed by momentary compressor fault message on ECAM. Left engine just rolled back and basically shut down. I took control of aircraft and radios as PF (Pilot Flying) and FO (First Officer) performed quick reference card and then we moved to ECAM. Left engine was shut down per ECAM then completed ECAM follow up in QRH as I took vectors back to PHX [advising ATC] and requesting Runway 08. FOB and souls were stated. After ECAM follow up was completed FO did landing assessment. Flaps 3 was briefed for single engine return. Weather was VFR. Airport was in sight and home base for both pilots. I talked to FAs (Flight Attendants); precautionary return landing was briefed and return to airport in 10 minutes. I made PA to passengers. Aircraft was slowly configured and made visual approach to Runway 08. Landed overweight at 142;200. Normal stop and right turn off. We never had fire indications and no smoke all engine indications were normal. We released fire department and proceeded to gate. On after landing inspection no noticeable damage to left engine. Left reverser remained deployed as both were selected as per operations for using both thrust reverser's on landing. Aircraft was written up for engine failure at altitude it occurred at (13000 ft.) max EGT of 792 C was noted and overweight landing noted in [logbook]. My First Officer did an excellent job and was well trained prepared and communicative!! My cabin crew did an excellent job also! Crew contacted director of PHX who is an incredible Director!! Crew was released.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a loud bang and aircraft jolt during climb out; with the left engine failing; resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After landing the tower controller told me 'You can reverse; taxi to (FBO); with me'. He never mentioned any taxiway or hi-speed exit; just 'reverse'. I assumed he meant I can course reverse (back taxi) on the runway. I made a 180 turn and proceeded to the next taxiway. Just before reaching the taxiway he called me on the radio again and told me 'When I say reverse I mean use the reverse high-speed exit; it's all good for now; taxi to (FBO) and contact clearance on your way out.' I apologized and went on my way. There was no loss of separation; or any kind of evasive action taken by anyone but I could clearly see two airplanes lined up on the approach for that runway (I'm estimating 10 miles out).I think part of the reason for this situation is the fact that ATC is so used to us. We fly here [very often]; usually night time and they are giving us instructions in an abbreviated form. Skipping taxiway names is common. Most of our pilots had been with the company for 10 plus years. I'm a new hire; barely 4 months of flying single pilot IFR into big Class B airports. Tower controllers developed an 'understanding' over the years with our pilots. They know when we park and how and when we operate and they are very; say; 'efficient' on the radio. Anyway I've learned my lesson. If that controller had included anything about a taxiway it would have prevented the whole situation. 'Reverse next high speed' or 'reverse the Yankee to parking' or even name the high speed taxiway.




Synopsis: Turboprop pilot reported receiving abbreviated and unclear taxi instructions after landing at IAD.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: DFW and DAL were in a south flow configuration. Weather was a factor as thunderstorms moved through the area. DAL was still reporting VFR weather and I was running visual approaches. The AR Controller for DFW had deviations around weather and were descending their downwind over DAL northwest bound. I noticed AR began descending aircraft into my airspace (Dallas North satellites) with no coordination; but I understood that they may have been too busy with their final and the weather impacting them. I coordinated with ADS tower to descend Aircraft X to 2;000 early through their airspace in order to help the AR's get lower. With Aircraft X at 2;000; he was headed to the final approach fix for Runway 13L from the east/northeast of DAL. I asked him to report the field in sight when he was about 6 miles out. He could not see the airport. I slowed him to 170 KTS or less and told him to turn to a 310 heading and that these were vectors for an ILS Runway 13L. I typed ILS in Aircraft X scratch pad and displayed the aircraft to AR2 (who was descending aircraft into my airspace with out coordination); to bring their attention to the plane so they would not descend on top of him. I noticed Aircraft Y; assigned Runway 17C at DFW begin descending out of 3;000 about 2 1/2 miles in front of my traffic. I turned Aircraft X immediately to a 240 heading to diverge away and issued traffic. Aircraft X called traffic in sight and I applied visual separation. I then boxed Aircraft X back around to set him up for an ILS 13L approach without further incident.Arrivals were training to my understanding. We have pre-arranged coordination between DN and AR's at 4;000 with a display. This did not occur. Secondly; no coordination took place from the AR's to descend through my airspace. They were descending aircraft to 3;000 and lower. Arrivals came over to me later and stated that once they passed my traffic; they believed they had divergence and so decided to descend further. AR's did not expect my traffic to turn to a downwind for an instrument approach. I stated that I lost visual approaches and had no choice but to turn him for an instrument approach and that they should have called and coordinated the use of my airspace.




Synopsis: Controller states another Sector did not coordinate as necessary with him leading to a loss of separation.
Date: 201502
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was a passenger on...a 737.  It had been snowing; prior to our pushback and the aircraft was deiced at the gate before departure.  Type I and type IV fluids were applied.  This is the second time that I have personally witnessed an inadequate application of type IV fluid.  The wing was striped orange and green after the application.  The snow and all precipitation had ended so I did not feel that this was worthy of reporting to the crew.  I was going to try to speak to them after we landed to let them know to be on the lookout for this; but they had already left the aircraft when I deboarded.To be clear; there was no jeopardy for this particular flight as the precipitation had ended.  There was also no requirement for the crew to do a wing check as the precipitation had ended so the crew would have never known otherwise.The safety issue is that as a crew; you expect a complete application of the proper fluid.  If there had been more precipitation; there would have been a danger of the fluid not providing an adequate anti-ice protection as the type IV application was not done correctly.  It almost appears as if they are skimping on the amount of fluid to save money.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain flying as a passenger on a B737 witnessed an incomplete Type IV de-icing application prior to gate departure; a failure he had previously experienced himself.  As there was no current precipitation he opted not to attempt to contact the flight crew until the end of the flight; but they had deplaned prior to his being able to do so.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Mission: Training
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing an inspection of the nose gear down light switch installed on this aircraft.  This inspection was a result of a 'flickering' nose gear down locked light during the prior flight.  With my knowledge of this aircraft; and of its recent work to the nose gear down light switch; I determined that the gear was safe for landing and the down light was indicating erroneously.  A safe landing was made without incident.  For safe measure the aircraft was shut down after clear of the runway and the nose gear lock was inspected.  The nose gear was down and locked.  To prevent any other further damage; the aircraft was towed back to its maintenance facility.  A small adjustment was made to the micro switch and the light performed as required during its first gear swing check.  The right hand nose gear door linkage was removed to facilitate easier adjustment of the switch.  The gear was swung numerous times to replicate the problem but was unable to.  The decision was made that the switch adjustment was adequate and aircraft was prepared for return to service.  It is believed that the gear door linkage rod was not re-installed and caused a bind in the landing gear when the landing gear was lowered in flight.  After the landing the aircraft nose was lifted and the bound door linkage rod was moved; the landing gear came down and locked manually easily.  It is believed that additional final inspection would have caught the missing hardware and prevented the incident.




Synopsis: PA-44 Maintenance Technician reports adjusting a nose gear down micro switch to correct an intermittent down indication on the previous flight.  The right hand nose gear door linkage was disconnected to facilitate easier adjustment of the switch and not reattached; which resulted in a jammed nose gear on the next flight.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a missed approach from 27L in ORD we were given a heading and a altitude of 5;000 feet. After the aircraft was cleaned up and passing through 3;500 feet closer to 4;000 feet we were given and altitude of maintain 4;000 feet the altitude was put in the window and verified by both pilots and with our high climb rate and close to the altitude we went through the 4;000 feet altitude by 300 feet. At the time we reached 4;000 feet myself the captain and the controller realize that we were going to go through the altitude and we were told to descend and maintain 4;000 feet. The flight was vectored around for 28C Approach and landed.


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


Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported during go-around initial missed approach altitude was changed from 5;000 to 4;000 and the autopilot was unable to keep up.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I departed ZZZ about XA:38 via a right downwind departure to the southwest and direct to ZZZ1. I climbed to 4500 ft. and began experiencing intermittent moderate turbulence; so I began a gradual descent. I was still on the ZZZ Tower frequency (although out of the class D) and Tower advised of traffic about 11 o'clock and same altitude. I advised I was descending. I had traffic on TCAS and saw traffic at about my 10 o'clock; 700 ft. above and probably 3000 ft. horizontally; and told ZZZ Tower that I had traffic in-sight. It appeared to be an experimental aircraft. I then switched ZZZ2 Approach for flight following and picked up flight following about 15 [miles] north of ZZZ1. I was told to enter a right downwind for Runway XX and then told to maintain 2000 ft.; which I did (actually closer to 2100 ft.); and was told to overfly a Cessna who was slower and would follow me in and that I was number 2 following a Learjet on final. I saw the Cessna. ZZZ1 Tower spun the Cessna to the left as I overflew him by 500 ft. as instructed. I reported the Lear in-sight and was then cleared to land behind the Learjet and started my approach. I landed on Runway XX behind the Learjet at about XA:54 and taxied to my tie-down.




Synopsis: A SR-22 Pilot reported overflying another aircraft while on approach to land.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cargo Air Carrier Ground Personnel shipment was found with un-declared Dangerous Goods while being inspected by a [company] Manager. The shipment was not accepted; but was refused prior to tender. We found 12 small boxes of UN3481; Lithium Ion Batteries. As per the item; it appears to be AirPods (2nd Generation) for Iphones. Models A2032; A2031; and A1938.




Synopsis: [Cargo Air Carrier] Ground Personnel reported shipment of undeclared Dangerous Goods during preflight. DG shipment refused.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During climb out; aircraft's right generator and associated IDG (Integrated Drive Generator) failed. The right IDG was disconnected. Associated checklist item. 'APU selector if available start'. APU was started. If APU were to be used for the remainder of the flight; a diversion would be required. After all checklists were completed and situation stabilized; myself and the other [relief pilot] proceeded to crew rest.Upon return; we were briefed on the resolution to this problem. Captain; Dispatch; [Maintenance Control] and fleet managers were conferenced into satcom discussions. As reference; MEL required the use of the APU for the entire flight. However the MEL was disregarded due to it being a dispatch requirement. Crew guidance of this problem was therefore the checklist; 2.XX.X. Eng gen off L. The question arose as to the interpretation of 'APU selector if available start'. This statement appears to give discretion to the crew. If the APU was required for flight; I believe the checklist would be written; 'APU start. If not available; consider divert.' What is the meaning of 'if available'? Does this allow for operational considerations? Checklists rarely state 'if available' to any item.Via conference call; it was agreed by Captain; Dispatch; [Maintenance Control] and fleet managers that the APU was not required for the remainder of the flight. I believe we used excellent CRM and all available resources to reach this conclusion. However the vagueness of the checklist was enough to warrant writing this [ASRS Report].




Synopsis: A Boeing 777 pilot reported an electrical system anomaly that was successfully managed despite ambiguous Flight Manual and MEL guidance.