elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A snow team had cleared snow from an intersecting runway and taxiway and had left snow on the runway. I asked the city vehicle about the snow on the runway and if it was safe for aircraft to depart. The city vehicle said the snow was 'just a dusting'. Two aircraft departed without incident. The snow team did another pass on the intersecting runway. After that; another aircraft started departure roll and then aborted the takeoff after hitting a snow bank. The pilot said it was about 2 feet deep and felt like hitting a herd of deer. The airport needs a vast improvement in their snow removal operation overall; and they need to be aware of snow that gets left on active runways.




Synopsis: Tower Local Controller reported snow removal vehicles reported clearing the runway before a departing aircraft hit a snow bank and rejected takeoff.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 30 minutes into the flight; at cruise; we received an ATC FAULT message and complied with the QRH. We switched from the left to the right transponder with no resolution to the defect. We asked ATC if they were still receiving our information and they said they were. About five minutes later we received TERR POS; GPS; RUNWAY SYS; and UNABLE RNP messages. We complied with the QRH for the messages. We worked with Ground Operations and ATC to verify appropriate equipment code; and determined we could proceed to destination. [Operations] SATCOM patched to us for coordination; this was helpful and timely. Approximately 30 minutes later all the messages went away. We landed uneventfully at destination. Caused by apparent failure of the GPS system. This aircraft has multiple events in its history of related problems.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that the aircraft GPS system failed; causing multiple fault messages.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR instrument currency flight at ZZZ on RNAV GPS Runway XX with safety pilot.  When outbound to ZZZZZ IAF at 3;300 MSL and entering the course reversal saw airspace indicated on GNS 530.  I realized the floor of ZZZ C airspace was 2;X00 MSL and penetrated airspace.  I Immediately descended to 2;Y00 MSL and continued the course reversal at that elevation and completed the practice approach.  Traffic display from ADS-B did not show any traffic conflict while at 3;300 in ZZZ C airspace. Lack of flying in past 6 months due to COVID limits contributed to reduced situational awareness and unfamiliar with this area and airspace.  Flying more and better use of EFB charts would have corrected this situation.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported having an airspace incursion while on an instrument currency flight and cited lack of recent flying due to COVID-19 and unfamiliarity with the airspace as contributing factors.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During pre-flight we found multiple system switches in the wrong position.1. Aircraft sat for X days prior to this flight. 2. Two mechanics stated they place these switches in these positions after X days without flying.Can we change the storage maintenance procedure when the aircraft is prepared for flight to place all switches in the expected position. This will greatly reduce the possibility of pilot error. This is far from the first time during pre-flight after maintenance we have found switches in what pilots would consider the wrong/unsafe position. Yes; it's the pilot's pre-flight responsibility; but we are all on the same team; no one is out there to enable grave pilot errors on purpose.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported multiple system switches are set in the wrong position on aircraft coming out of storage.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Borescope Plug
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was with a student ready to go for a lesson. We were holding short of runway [4;400 FT remaining] at the intersection. We got a 'no delay' takeoff clearance as there was a business jet on 3 mile final. I took the flight controls from the student; accepted the clearance and proceeded to takeoff immediately. The airplane accelerated uneventfully to rotation speed and I rotated. Our wheels left the ground; but the plane did not climb out of ground effect as it normally does even though we were at normal climb attitude and airspeed. As the end of the runway was approaching fast and the plane still seemed unable to climb; I decided in the interest of safety to abort the takeoff and land straight ahead. I was able to stop the plane just barely before the end of the pavement. At that point I told Tower that I was still on the runway and that I needed to get off. I heard that the business jet had landed and they got instructed to roll to A9 and get off. Tower instructed me to get off using my choice of either A11 or B10. I turned the airplane around and taxied to A11. I left the runway at that point.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot discovers that her aircraft will not climb after rotation. The aircraft is placed back on the runway and the takeoff rejected. A business jet is allowed to land while this is occurring.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Landing; Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the Maintenance Check Flight [we] noticed a fuel imbalance on the left tank of 200 pounds less than the one indicated on the right tank on the initial climb out.  The flight crew decided to turn back and land at the airport. The unbalance increased to 400 pounds during cruise flight. We; the flight crew; decided to transfer fuel from the right to the left tank for balance purposes.  The transfer process was stopped during the descent and [we] continued to monitor the fuel gauges. The fuel unbalance was stabilized at the same 400 pounds during the initial descent all the way down until the landing.  We; the crew; nor the Mechanic on board who was assigned to monitor the left tank during the flight noticed any leak. While on the approach Tower was advised by another aircraft on the ground that while our aircraft was on short final [they] noticed something hanging or coming out from our left wing. The maintenance flight was completed unsatisfactory and the aircraft was written up for fuel unbalanced during flight.




Synopsis: A DHC-8-200 on a test flight developed a fuel imbalance which the Mechanic on board could not balance and so on return to the airport a ground observer commented that something was hang from or coming from the left wing.
Date: 201310
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Departure / Pushback
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on the pushback; Captain said push to spot Tango. I started the push pushing straight back tail toward the service road; stopped; and put the [tug] in reverse and started to turn towards the spot going counterclockwise. Mid-way through the push the wing walker on my left side threw up the stop signal and we stopped there for about 2 minutes.  Then the wing walker on my left side gave me the all clear by this time the Number 2 engine was going.  About 7 seconds after he gave me the clear he gave the stop signal again. During those 7 seconds I turned my head for a moment since I was going in reverse.  I stopped but by then it was too late and I was notified that the left winglet of the aircraft I was pushing rubbed up against the aft wing of the parked aircraft on the next gate.




Synopsis: Tug driver reports the left winglet of the aircraft he is pushing back contacting the horizontal stabilizer of a parked aircraft at the adjacent gate. The wing walker had signaled stop but was not noticed until too late.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Selector
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Student was on a solo cross country flight. Flight was to visit two airports then return. On the last leg; he started to have engine trouble; and went through the engine out procedure. Once he diagnosed the issue was that the right fuel tank was indicating 0; he switched tanks in an attempt to restart but the engine failed to start. Once he reached 2;000 feet MSL; he then executed an engine out emergency landing in a harvested corn field. He successfully landed the aircraft without damage or injury to himself. To prevent a future occurrence of fuel mismanagement; the student will undergo ground and flight training on fuel management and system operation.


Second narrative: I was on a solo cross country flight as a student pilot. On the last leg; I started to have engine trouble; and went through the engine out procedure. Once I diagnosed the issue was that the right fuel tank was indicating 0; I switched tanks in an attempt to restart but the engine failed to start. Once I reached 2;000 feet MSL; I then executed an engine out emergency landing in a harvested corn field. I successfully landed the aircraft without damage or injury to myself or the plane. To prevent a future occurrence of fuel mismanagement; I will undergo ground and flight training on fuel management and system operation.


Synopsis: A PA28 student pilot on a solo cross country flight and his supervising instructor report a fuel mismanagement problem resulting in engine stoppage and an off airport landing without injuries or damage.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ALB.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing Albany; the flight was on an IFR flight plan. On climb out; nearing 7000 MSL we were advised of traffic at our 11 o'clock in 4 miles and headed westbound at 7500 FT MSL. ATC advised us to level at 7000 FT until the traffic was clear. We leveled at 7000 FT headed north and looking for traffic. We had the traffic on our TCAS; which our Garmin was equipped. The traffic turned east. TCAS and ATC advised us of the updated traffic. The traffic call was now 11 o'clock and 4 miles and descending. We were still looking to no avail. TCAS alerted the traffic 100 feet above us. ATC said that the traffic was less than a mile and closing on our altitude and suggested immediate descent. The FO turned off the autopilot and nosed the aircraft over. I; the PIC; took control of the aircraft and performed an Emergency Descent flow for smooth air. The plane was in a 3500 FPM descent at 220 knots. At 5500 FT we were clear of the traffic and it was evident that the traffic was flying VFR in IFR conditions. I handed the controls back over to the First Officer. We were told to climb to 9000 FT and contact the Center controller. TCAS in this narrative is traffic avoidance provided through the transponder.




Synopsis: A small transport aircraft departed ALB and while climbing IMC near 7;000 FT took evasive action from a VFR traffic at 7;500 FT also in IMC conditions.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Manager is coercing me to sign off work too quickly. This would mean work in a reckless; un-safe and illegal manner. It's an atmosphere of tension and pressure. Clearly it violates the company policy. The policy is designed to prevent accidents. Signing off work prematurely is a violation of FAR's and the Company [Procedures Manual] General Policy and Procedure Manual. Driving too fast violates airport regulations. I received a disciplinary letter threatening termination. It claims I took too long to accomplish a task. The flight wasn't delayed and was completed before my quitting time. The letter contains inaccuracies. Most of the delay was in the hands of the Inspection Department. Part of the delay was running the engines; then waiting for the fuel to settle. The delays were outside my control. I was never offered help. Manager never questioned Inspection Department about the delay. I have no idea why I am being pressured into signing off work faster. I completed the task before quitting time and the flight wasn't delayed. I have never received a verbal warning about my job performance. Have Management actually use the policy. Have Management provide more training. If the Mechanic and Inspector are issued a newly published job card that they have never seen; have someone coach them on the new card. Don't issue fuel sampling/test work cards unless there is a diagram labeling which tank is which. Train all the inspectors on how to do fuel bio test. That way they won't be loading pressure on the only Inspector authorized to preform test. Before mailing disciplinary letter; conduct an investigation regarding the work. Actually speak to the Mechanic getting the letter and speak to all people involved. It will eliminate falsely accusing a Mechanic of working too slow because accidents happen when he goes too fast. Don't demand work [to] be signed off until it's ready.The Job Card didn't have diagrams showing and labeling which fuel tank was which.




Synopsis: Technician reported concerns over Manager ignoring company policies and pressuring an unsafe; expedited Job Card completion.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Perf Init (FMS page) was routinely programmed with a Vmo/Mmo/3.0 descent; the standard configuration. Upon descent we were cleared to cross WYNDE at 10;000 [FT]. I verified the correct TOD with the information in the FMS progress page as well as the VN (Vertical Navigation) Data page; and began an early descent. Throughout; the descent I monitored our progress on the VN Data page which consistently showed around -2;000 FT; as well as the PFD V-path indicator (showing below the required path for WYNDE). These (incorrect) indications continued all the way until we crossed WYNDE at 12;000 [FT]; which is 2;000 FT above the requirement. By the time the crew realized both indications; the VN Data page and the PFD VPI; were false; there was insufficient time to make complete corrections; and we crossed at 12;000 [FT]. With increased use of OPDs and other heavily FMS dependent descents; I must seriously question the reliability of our equipment. The FMS is supposed to help manage the flight; it is now becoming a threat. FMSs have lied to the crews before. If this continues; flight crews will be forced to advise ATC that they are unable RNAV descents; because of FMS unreliability.




Synopsis: Despite having insured proper FMS programming and monitoring available vertical path guidance; an E-145 flight crew failed to comply with the 10;000 FT crossing restriction at WYNDE waypoint while flying the WYNDE RNAV STAR to ORD.