elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft LH MLG landing gear aft trunnion pin sheared during landing; gouging the MLG support beam. I was assigned by supervision and engineering to blend the two damaged areas and provide dimensions after the blends were complete. I was given an AVO 8258 by engineering that provided detailed instructions regarding the blend requirements. After completing the blend; I documented the blends and made updates to have inspection perform fluorescent penetrant inspection ref AVO 8258.  was informed by inspection today that the airplane had been quarantined. At the time I blended the damage; I was not aware the aircraft was in quarantine and was doing as instructed.




Synopsis: Technician reported repairing aircraft damage on a B737-800 that was quarantined because of miscommunication.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge; Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger came onboard without a mask (wasn't even on his person). The other FA asked him to put a mask on and he did. During boarding; he had to be reminded to wear his mask. During climbout; passenger ignored seatbelt sign and got up. Announcement was reiterated to remain seated. He sat back down but did not put seatbelt back on until he was approached to do so. During service; he was again; not wearing mask. I told him to put it on and he complied. During walk through; his seatbelt was once again off while the seatbelt sign was on. He had to be asked again to put it on. He wasn't happy about it but complied. After the cabin had been secured for landing and the cabin had been secured for anticipated turbulence; he took his mask back off.  At that point; it was turbulent and unsafe for us to get up. The other FA had to motion for him to put the mask back on. He complied but the mask continued to come off and we continued to motion to put it back on. After gear came down; the passenger got up (in moderate turbulence and on final approach) and moved seats. We made an announcement for him to be seated immediately. He did not stay in his original seat; but ultimately moved to a different seat anyways.Upon landing; the other FA told him moving when he did was absolutely unsafe and completely unacceptable. He just got off the airplane.  The passenger got up in turbulence on final approach after gear came down and moved seats despite being told not to. It was unsafe to make him move back to seat for weight and balance.This passenger had a complete disregard for safety and was incredibly non compliant. While all little non compliant moments at first; it continued until he did something that was truly dangerous to the people sitting near him. Not only was he non compliant with our mask policy but his reckless behavior in moving around during turbulence after being told not to could have easily injured those around him. He shouldn't be allowed to travel with us in the future.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non compliant with face mask policy and also changing seats while in turbulence and on final approach.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair IV/IVP
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed on the newly-resurfaced and painted Runway XXR at ZZZ; although this runway was closed by NOTAM.I was returning to my home airfield after three weeks away. Although I checked NOTAMs for the several stops enroute home from the west coast; I failed to check the NOTAMs for ZZZ; a very familiar airport; for the final leg of this trip. I also failed to catch the note on the ATIS that advised Taxiway 1 was being used as Runway XXR. The 2-3 minute ATIS transmission contained extensive information about no IFR operations and multiple taxiway and access closures.I was cleared to land on 'Runway XXR' and cautioned about the strong and gusty winds. The landing was uneventful and posed no risk to personnel in the airplane or on the ground. There were no workers or service vehicles in the area. I was able to back-taxi on the closed runway under tower supervision and exit at the normal point to my rented hangar on the northeast side of the field.I understand that the runway was closed for good reason--the yet to be completed lighting systems--and that such a landing is always a potential risk to pilots and ground crew. I hope (and believe) I would have noted and aborted the landing had any people or equipment been on or near the runway I landed on.I attribute this incident to complacency on my part. I expected a clearance to land on Runway XXR; based on the winds; and when I saw the newly-resurfaced runway; I went for it. I am embarrassed by the fact that I would make such an error after XX+ years of flying.




Synopsis: LNCA4 single pilot reported inadvertently landing on closed runway.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
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
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Copied clearance prior to departure [from APC] was 'MERLO1 then Cleared as Filed'. That filed route was SAC.SWR. During climb; ATC had previously issued vector heading 030 followed by 'Cleared direct Truck'. Because TRUCK did not appear in our FMS flight plan; I instructed PNF to enter TRK in FMS and temporarily go direct as I assumed there was a TRK VOR located near the airport TRK. The FMS recognized the TRK WPT and proceeded in what seemed a reasonable direction. The controller soon after asked if we were headed direct TRUCK and we responded 'yes'. He then confirmed the spelling of the intended WPT as 'TRUCK' (not TRK). We requested a vector until we got the WPT sorted out. The controller issued a 'turn right heading 270.' We then had corrected the FMS WPT to TRUCK and advised and were cleared direct.A mistake on my part was assuming WPT spelling and not verifying w/ ATC when they issued something that was not in our flight plan. This is also the second time that our departure clearance from APC has been different or in error. Short of requesting a full route clearance; there isn't anyway to know that what is being issued as '..then cleared as filed' matches what was actually filed.




Synopsis: BE30 Captain reported a track deviation after departing APC when he was cleared to TRUCK; but navigated toward TRK.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PMD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E E10
ATC / advisory: TRACON E10
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Loss of GPS reception to both receivers. Lost reception in 530 unit followed by 430 unit about 30 secs later with associated Dead Reckon advisory. Advised Joshua of loss and they gave me a position report. About 4 mins later the units received the satellites again and worked fine.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot experiences loss of GPS reception on two seperate GPS units near PMD at 7500 feet. Both units return to normal operation after about four minutes.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: YKM.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure; the aircraft was de-iced due to overnight frost buildup. After deicing we began our taxi out and we were informed by the tower that there would be flow control beginning shortly. Upon reaching the runway; while we were being cleared for takeoff; Operations called us regarding our deicing. We called the tower and told them we were not ready to depart.Throughout the discussion both Celsius and Fahrenheit scales were being used concurrently by operations without distinction.  At this point it seemed to both the Captain and I that some error had been made in the math being used by the deice personnel. After further query it was revealed that the 14 degrees referenced was in Fahrenheit; however it was still unclear in the cockpit if there was indeed a problem. It was not effectively relayed that the aircraft had been deiced using the wrong fluid and needed to be deiced again. Soon thereafter operations stated that they had run the numbers again and that we were good. After a short discussion in the cockpit; the decision was made that the flight would depart as the aircraft had been deiced and was clean. Station operations deicing the aircraft with the wrong fluid. Station operations did not effectively communicate that the aircraft had been deiced using the wrong fluid and that we were required to return to be deiced properly.




Synopsis: First Officer reported there was a procedural deviation during preflight deice procedures that was not discovered until they had taxied to the runway. The flight took off even though the reporter realized later they should have returned to the gate for proper deice procedure.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All communications were normal from the gate through departure. On climb out we did not receive a call from Tower to switch to Departure Control. After several attempts to contact Tower we switched to Departure Control. When we were unable to contact Departure Control we tried several frequencies and were unable to establish communication. 7600 was selected on the transponder and we leveled at the last assigned altitude of 5;000 FT. For some time we tried to resolve the problem by disconnecting all microphones and headsets including those at the observer seats. Both communication radios and both audio select panels were tested. As a last resort we sent an ACARS message to Dispatch advising him of our status and requesting him to contact ATC and advise that we were returning to our departure airport. On base leg we heard a transmission from Tower. At that point both VHF communications radios became fully operational and remained so throughout the landing. Maintenance was unable to duplicate the problem at the gate and all communication functions remained normal.




Synopsis: When they were unable to communicate with ATC after takeoff the flight crew of a B757-200 squawked 7600 and sent an ACARS message to Dispatch requesting them to advise ATC at their departure airport they would be returning. On base leg communications were re-established. No cause for the loss and/or its resurrection was determined by Maintenance.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EGE
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Prior to starting engines at EGE we loaded the flight plan in the FMS; and then preceded it by the 'Visual [Engine Out] Procedure' with all the waypoints required therein. The problem arose that only the first fix; 'ABCDE' was in the FMS database and the remainder had to be entered using the LAT/LONG. Upon taxiing out and holding short of the runway a quick review of the first fix on the escape maneuver showed it to be well beyond the second and 90 NM from the field. I brought this to the attention of the PNF and he corrected it with the correct fix in LAT/LONG. Subsequent discussion with the Check Airman; as this was a 121.440 check; revealed that ATC had in fact adopted this name for a fix which was in somewhat close proximity to the Company fix. It would seem that some system of verifying waypoint names between the FAA and private operators would go a long way toward avoiding this potentially hazardous situation. If we had the ability to create FAA recognized waypoints for use in the ATC system we could avoid this kind of ambiguity. Operationally; I feel it's too much to ask of the crews to have yet another procedure for verifying the waypoints against LAT/LONG when they exist in the database already. It would seem to be a systemic error rather then operational.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain discovers during taxi that a company designed visual engine out procedure from EGE; which must be entered into the FMC manually; has a waypoint name that is the same as an FAA waypoint. This is corrected by entering Lat/Long; the same as the other waypoints in the procedure which are not in the FMC data base.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBGR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending for the ILS 9R; the SBGR approach controller told us to 'descend to 5000 feet; unrestricted descent'. The captain; who was the PM; read back the clearance to descend to 5000 feet. The air traffic controller; who's English was terrible; then repeated the clearance to 'descend to five thousand five hundred; unrestricted descent.' It was very difficult to understand these two clearances. The captain again read back the clearance to descend to 5000 feet. I wasn't sure of the altitude clearance; because of the lack of clear English used by the controller; but I asked the captain to verify if we were cleared down to 5500 or 5000 feet. The captain; who had become very grumpy and agitated after being awake all night while flying down to SBGR barked at me that he was sure the altitude assigned to us was 5000 feet and he set it in the MCP. He seemed certain about the assigned altitude so I took his word for it. Once level at 5000 feet; the controller told us we should have been at 5500 feet.


Second narrative: We heard Approach clear us to 5000 ft and I read back 5000 ft. Radar minimum altitude is 5500 ft. I asked approach for altitude clearance again and he said 5000 ft and I read back 5000 ft again. ATC cleared us to an intercept heading for ILS final and cleared us to 5500 ft. I told him we were previously cleared to 5000 ft.


Synopsis: The Captain of a redeye flight to SBGR heard a clearance to 5;000 feet. The foreign Controller's clearance was actually to 5;500 feet which the flying First Officer heard correctly. When level at 5;000 feet; which the Captain wanted; the Controller commented on the incorrect altitude.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: K90.TRACON, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E K90
ATC / advisory: TRACON K90
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were descending into ACK in VMC while VFR. Passing about 5;500 we visually acquired traffic at our 11 o'clock. The traffic page of our MFD indicated he was at a range of 10 miles. Shortly after we acquired the traffic Cape Approach warned us of the same traffic and said they were westbound at 4;500 FT. Upon passing through 4;500 FT during our descent the conflicting traffic was approximately 4 miles from us at our 11 o'clock position and began to descend. At approximately 2 miles he began a left turn toward us. His aircraft no longer had any relative movement and was coming directly at us. The lights of his aircraft were getting more vivid by the second. The pilot flying and I both pulled back on the yoke to initiate and very steep climb to avoid the other aircraft. During our climb the TCAS alerted us to the traffic. I watched the other aircraft pass below our aircraft from left to right. This situation is another example of why looking outside the aircraft for conflicting traffic is so important.


Second narrative: The turboprop was eastbound to ACK receiving VFR advisories. I observed a westbound 1200 code (acft Y) at 4;500 (not in communication with ATC). I issued traffic to the turboprop - 11 o'clock; 5 miles; opposite direction at 4;500. He reported the traffic in site. I observed the westbound traffic descending and updated the turboprop with that trend. He asked if we were in communication with the other aircraft to which I informed him we were not. I told the turboprop pilot it appeared the other aircraft turned toward him and descended to which he replied that was exactly what he did. I immediately informed the FLM.Shortly after acft Y called for advisories.Yesterday I learned that the turboprop pilot had filed a NMAC.


Synopsis: A turboprop pilot and two K90 controllers reported a near miss near ACK in ZBW airspace between one VFR aircraft with flight following and another VFR aircraft with no communications.