elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
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: Manuals; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon completing my walkaround; I noticed there were FOUR vortilons on the left wing versus THREE on the right wing. Our manual (AOM) (Aircraft Operations Manual) states that there are three installed outboard of the engine. This was the second time in about six months that I noticed this on a walkaround. As I entered the jetway; I informed the Ops (Operations) Agent that there was a Maintenance discrepancy and that boarding should be stopped. Six months earlier; we ended up deplaning Passengers and Jumpseaters as the aircraft was taken out of service.I informed the Captain of the discrepancy and informed him of what had happened six months earlier.  Back then; I had 5 vortilons on one wing and three on the other. Although I never got any feedback of the outcome of that particular event; I suspected that a MAX slat had been installed on the NG (Next Generation). I suspected that because the next aircraft we were assigned to was a MAX and the slat in question looked identical to the one on the NG. For what it's worth; our MAX AOM is incorrect in that it states there are three vortilons per wing. There are actually 5. I submitted a report and received an email telling me the manuals would be updated. The MAX AOM is still wrong.Back to my NG in ZZZ. The Captain called Maintenance Control and was told the slats were interchangeable. I actually talked to the Controller as well and told him what happened a few months earlier. He informed me that Company had received guidance from Boeing and told me again that the parts were interchangeable. He mentioned that there was more than one aircraft flying around like that and that he got a call about it every day. I suggested that some sort of guidance should be shared with the pilot group; so that we were aware of the discrepancy between the books and the actual aircraft. I have ZERO written guidance in front of me. The only thing I have is the Maintenance Controller's word; yet for whatever reason it doesn't sit well with me.  I hope to receive feedback; and more importantly; I hope guidance is shared with the entire pilot group (at least update the manuals).




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported the number of vortilons installed on the left wing was different than on the right wing and may be a 737-MAX slat.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEQM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On the ILS approach to Runway 36 at Quito (SEQM) in VMC at night; I was very distracted by the bright lights along the highway just west of the runway. Minor deviations of glide slope and localizer were experienced between 300 FT and 100 FT AFL. If I had been in IMC to minimums; I believe the distraction could be hazardous.I think there should be an advisory to pilots regarding these lights and a request to the airport authority to shield or dim the lights. The new Quito airport is not in your database.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain advised that highway lights angling across the approach to Runway 36 at SEQM (Quito; Ecuador) are bright; distracting and contributed to modest track/alt deviations by the pilot flying making a VMC approach. The reporter is concerned the deleterious effect would be greater during low minimum operations.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm; Rain; 3
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was on an IFR flight plan to ZZZ; had to divert for an embedded line of thunderstorms with heavy lightning. We were on a west heading to avoid the storm; when we decided to divert to ZZZ1 for passenger comfort. Center cleared us into to ZZZ1 on the visual; during the downwind leg we lost the airport in the low level clouds that pushed in; so we asked to go to ZZZ2 that is 15 miles to the north. ATC cleared us into ZZZ2 on the visual; we stayed on our IFR flight plan and told ATC we would cancel on the ground in case we couldn't make it in. Once we landed I noticed the taxiways were blocked off. I let one of the passengers out that was feeling ill to relieve himself. A construction worker appeared and claimed we landed on a closed runway; I asked him where the X's were on the runway; he claimed they put them in the dirt and weeds off the end of the runway so they did not have to move them when they were seal coating the runway. After my passenger was feeling better we fueled up and taxied out and took off; on climb out I did notice that there was an X about 100 feet off the runway in the grass. We contacted Center and they asked if we were aware that ZZZ2 was closed; I informed them that we figured it out after the fact. ATC then opened up a new IFR flight plan to ZZZ and we continued our flight without any further issues.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported landing at a closed airport after receiving ATC assistance on an IFR clearance.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Thunderstorms in the CLT area. CLT approach shut us off with about 5 aircraft inbound; the closest about 15 miles away from airspace boundary. I cleared Aircraft X to hold at BTSEY with detailed holding down to 130; with Aircraft Y established in holding at 120. I noticed that Aircraft X was below the assigned altitude; and questioned the pilot. Aircraft X acknowledged and climbed back up to 130. Approximately 30 seconds later Aircraft X descended back down below 130. I don't believe separation was ever lost with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. At this point the frequency was very congested (another CLT holding aircraft low on fuel); so I vectored Aircraft X out to the east just to get the aircraft into an area that had no other aircraft. The pilot of Aircraft X did not demonstrate to me that he could keep the aircraft level in a holding pattern. About 5 minutes later; I turned the aircraft left to a 280 heading to reestablish holding; and then went on to other things. When I looked back; Aircraft X had turned due south; directly into CLT approach. I attempted to correct the pilot and turned to a 010 heading (I believe). After 20-30 seconds; I didn't see any start of a turn; so I continued the turn to a 340 heading with emphasis. I was very busy on the frequency and do not know if my D side coordinated with CLT approach before the aircraft entered their airspace; but don't believe it happened in a timely manner.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller reported of holding aircraft for CLT due to thunderstorms. One aircraft was assigned holding instructions but kept on busting altitude. Controller moved aircraft away from other traffic and then the aircraft did not fly as instructed.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is an example of an arrival that should be simplified. There are too many crossing restrictions and to properly brief it takes time; especially when changes occur. In our situation we were expecting; according to the ATIS either Runway 36R or Runway 5 off the [tailored for the air carrier] STAR. We briefed both at altitude; verifying the fixes against what was in the FMS. During initial descent; however; we were told to pick up a new ATIS and to now expect the Runway 23 ILS with the appropriate transition. (Note: The weather was also minimums for the ILS and had a tailwind so we took some extra time making sure we thoroughly briefed and understood the approach) Loading the box with the new runway/approach/arrival transition; picking up the new ATIS; re-briefing the entire arrival; cross checking the restrictions; all while flying the airplane; frequency changes; etc. creates a huge workload and makes it easy to miss any discrepancies. In addition; during the descent we were told to cross MAJIC at 13;000 instead of between 13;000 and 17;000 as charted. No problem if you have plenty of time; but in the real world often you don't. It is easy to miss that seemingly small distinction in the box which could lead to a deviation. Bottom line: Either simplify the arrivals or stick to them without changes; which is not realistic in the real world with frequent weather and traffic challenges.




Synopsis: The Captain of a ERJ-190 expressed his concern regarding the complexity of a tailored STAR arrival at CLT. He believes it should either be simplified or utilized only in its entirety without ATC directed modifications or interruptions. He believes this arrival is an 'example' of other complex STARs as well.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GVT.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Runway 8-26 at GVT has been marked closed for several years; but has been in continuous use by many local pilots at their discretion during high wind conditions that make 17-35 unsuitable. A few years ago a company; an airport tenant; erected two 70 foot high towers with a wire antenna array suspended across the approach end of Runway 26. Although the wire is marked with power-line balls; it remains a very low visibility hazard. Several pilots not aware of the hazard have reported narrowly missing the obstruction.The obstruction is not charted on any of the terminal approach procedures or airport diagrams even though it is higher in elevation than other charted items. The obstruction is not listed in any NOTAM.As a minimum; the obstruction needs to be listed in NOTAMs and the Airport Facility Directory notes for GVT.




Synopsis: A user pilot reported that an airport tenant had erected 70 foot high towers to the east of the approach end of a runway that has been closed for a number of years. He reported that the closed runway 'had been in continuous use by local pilots 'at their discretion' during high wind conditions...' which make the actual open runway unsuitable.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Weather; Staffing; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Working three combined sectors. Weather on west and east side of the sector with multiple departure traffic deviating into sector. Sectors handling metropolitan area traffic were in holding and deviating into the airspace. Other sectors very busy also coordinating point outs; departures; arrival traffic all deviating for squall line running throughout the sector. I was extremely and excessively busy; using multiple frequencies; aircraft were blocking transmissions and read backs. The landline and override calls were too much workload to manage and continue to perceive; assess; and plan control actions. I asked for a Radar Assist Side than in an attempt to regain control of the sector. This assistance came after separation loss with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y.Sectors should not be combined when such workloads and weather conditions exist; traffic safety was significantly compromised. Controllers coming on shift should get weather and game plan briefings. Staffing levels should exceed the potential traffic problems verses the way; the FAA normally staffs sectors and commits controllers to working beyond human ability that would ensure safer conditions for the users of the N.A.S. (National Airspace System).




Synopsis: A Controller working three sectors combined had less than required separation between two aircraft during a period of weather deviations and higher than normal workload.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner 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: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [Company] needs to assign qualified techs to ETOPS per 03-XX-XX.




Synopsis: Technician reported that Company is using non-qualified technicians to perform ETOPS checks.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were cleared to FL340 and my copilot was Pilot Flying (PF). We started encountering turbulence and my copilot disconnected the autopilot for a smoother ride (A/P very sensitive to turbulence). Turbulence was occasional moderate. 1000 ft call was made and acknowledged by both crew at FL330. We received from ATC traffic advisory at FL350. We had the traffic on our TCAS (TCAS II). We saw the traffic at 2-3 o'clock and passing behind us on our right wing. The traffic was not a factor. No TA or RA on TCAS. My First Officer (F/O) started reducing pitch and pulling the throttle back to [Max Cruise Thrust] MCR to level off at 340 and I saw a large ascent (updraft). My F/O corrected by pitching down using the electric elevator trim (low speed mode when pitching down); avoiding pulling negatives Gs on the airframe. Using the electric trim was not quick enough and the aircraft kept climbing to 300 to 500 ft above FL340 to the point forward pressure input directly on the yoke and the aircraft finally settled down to FL340. The recovery from the event was smooth with no impact (Gs) on anyone on board. In the meantime ATC called to tell us that we were deviating from assigned altitude. Shortly after; ATC cleared us to FL400 where the ride was much smoother. Updraft or wake turbulence from the crossing traffic at FL350. The encounter happened when the traffic was behind us.




Synopsis: LR60 Captain reported overshooting cleared altitude in climb to FL340 after encountering wake turbulence from a wide body transport aircraft.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: A319
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received call from CLP agent Mr. X stating that Bos ops had a discrepancy showing how air carrier flight X was loaded.  Mr. X stated that they were showing aft bin empty on their close out and after flt was airborne; 1400 lbs showed up in aft cargo compt. The flight was still within limits but this could have been a big problem for wt & bal CG limits.  Bos ops needs to be a lot more careful with how they close out a flight.  Luckily it turned out ok.  Somebody in Bos ops is not talking to the ramp agents loading the aircraft. Better communication between Bos ops and ramp agents.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports receiving updated weights for a flight after aircraft had taken off. Report cites lack of communication between load planning/ground personnel as the main problem.
Date: 201706
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Load Planner
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Load Planner
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was ready for me to plan the load as a weight restricted flight. I communicated this to the station and told them exactly how many non revs they could put on. I monitored the flight and closer to departure; the station confirmed their final bag count with me and we decided to put on 16/144 including non revs. (Prior to this; the Dispatcher conferenced me in with the Captain and he insisted his paperwork did not show a weight restriction and he wanted to fill up his seats. I told him that he could not take all non revs based on the information I had but I would try to get on as many as I could.)Apparently dispatch and the captain talked again and dispatch told the captain that there were 19 kids on board so he took it upon himself to tell the station to load up all seats because he had the extra weight. This was not true because the kid weights were already in the system. This caused him to be overweight and dispatch had to run another release but she couldn't get the weight completely down. He pushed and was on the runway refusing to come back to take off people or bags. The dispatcher ended up doing 4 releases to get him on his way legally. The flight ended up being 55 min late due to a captain not allowing me to do my job as a load planner. The extra non revs and their bags he insisted on taking caused the aircraft to be overweight and delayed all our revenue passengers.


Second narrative: Flight had weight restriction and communicated with station Operations with 164 passengers. Pilot and dispatch had conversation about (19)KIDS weights and pilot decided to make a full flight without asking load planning which created a 840lbs. overweight condition. Pilot is arguing with load planning about half KIDS weights which already in the system. Pilot demanding not to take non revenue passengers off from flight and causing longer delays. Aircraft pushed without weights which was still illegal.


Synopsis: The Load Planners reported a flight that pushed back 840 pounds over weight because the Captain wanted to accommodate all of the non-revenue passengers.