elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Two Maintenance technicians] were called to go on a road trip that had a left emergency exit door squeal. We were told that we would be the only 2 people going on the road trip. We were dispatched via a chartered plane. After boarding the aircraft and reviewing the logbook; we determined that we needed to run the engines and pressurize the aircraft. During the pressurization there was a notable noise coming from the left overwing emergency exit door lower side. We contacted Maintenance Control to update them and told them that we were going to need to open that door and remove it and check the condition of the seal. We asked them for an AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) reference and they stated that we would be using AMM 52-21-11. We went into the aft cargo pit and pinned the [slide inflation] bottle; then proceeded to the cabin and disarmed the door and pinned it. We removed the door and checked the seam and cleaned it; then reinstalled the door; rearmed the door and removed the safety pin. Then we went into the aft cargo pit an unpinned the bottle and closed up the access panel and had the aircraft back into a normal configuration. We ran the engines and pressurized the aircraft again and found no leaks or noises coming from the left overwing emergency exit door. We used the AMM 52-21-11 reference for this task. At no time were we aware of a Job Card that could have been used for the removal and installation of the overwing exit. Prior to leaving on the road trip a question came up as to whether Inspection would be coming on the road trip or not. It was determined by the Duty Manager that Inspection would not be going. After we had returned from the road trip the Inspection Department notified us that there should have been an Inspector present during the installation of the overwing exit door. Assumptions that inspection would not be needed proved to be wrong as the overwing exit door needed to be removed and reinstalled. Send an inspector on a road trip if you think you might need one or not.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Two Maintenance technicians were flown to an outlying station to repair a maintenance defect. After they completed the work; and returned to the home station; they were advised that the work they performed should have been verified by an Inspector.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure out of ZZZ was given a heading after taking off and to level at 6;000 feet. I turned to the heading and let the nose [go] below the flight director to try and give an easier level off. At first I reduced the throttles manually; but as we were also looking for traffic ahead I let go of the throttles while looking outside and ended up speeding up to about 265 knots before realizing it. I immediately pulled the throttles back and added back pressure.I believe I underestimated how rusty I might be from barely flying this month. Going forward I'm going to rely more on following the flight director much closer; especially because of how little I'm flying.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain had an airspeed deviation and cited being rusty due lack of flying as contributing.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechcraft Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Surveying / Mapping (UAS)
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small UAS; Multi Rotor
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying a survey mission over the area at 15;500 ft VFR we saw a small drone flying below us at about 14;500 ft.  The drone was about the size of DJI drone and gray in color.  It was moving south as we were going north; so we didn't have much time to make out the exact size.  We immediately reported to TRACON.  For the remaining two hours of our survey mission we did not see it again.




Synopsis: A VFR pilot in cruise flight at 15;500 feet noticed a small UAS about 1000 feet below them flying in the opposite direction.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching LOC intercept to ILS 25L LAX we were made aware of several other A/C on approach including 757 ahead of us for 25L. We were sequenced in behind the 757 very tight at just 3nm spacing. I attempted to add spacing by squaring the turn and slowing early but was told by Approach to turn to 320 and intercept; cleared the approach. Soon after intercepting the glide slope we hit minor turbulence that we assumed was the 757 wake. Within 10 secs the turbulence was so great that the A/C was temporarily uncontrollable (not responding to manual stick inputs). This was followed by an aural warning advising us that we had a NAV ADR disagree and a NAV STBY AOA fault. It also advised us we had reverted to Alternate Law and had manual trim only. We chose to continue the approach as the A/C was configured and back under control. I asked for flaps full and landing checklist. FO was reading over the faults delineated on the EICAS and apparently didn't hear my call for full flaps. We completed the check list but then somewhere around 500ft the A/C advised us that we were not in full flaps as we had programmed. We selected full and made an uneventful landing.At the gate I called LA approach and they said that there was a new rule now that made the 757 just another large A/C and that they only needed 3nm for spacing. He then apologized for the fact that we were 3.15nm in trail with 7nm spacing to the A/C behind us. The bottom line is that there is NO WAY that spacing should be just 3nm behind a 757! This upset knocked out the Normal flight control logic of the A319. Do we not remember the [A300] that went down in NY due to wake turbulence! In the throes of the upset; with the A/C not responding to inputs for a short time; all I could think of was 'STAY OFF THE RUDDERS'. One suggestion: End this new minimum separation rule for the 757!

Callback: Reporter stated he learned later that the angle of attack vane was found to be physically broken; which was the cause of the reversion to alternate law.

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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported experiencing a momentary loss of control following a wake vortex encounter in trail of a B757 on approach to LAX.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on a training flight with a student in Cessna [172]. We were dispatched; METAR was showing wind from 120 at 8 gusting to 14 at the moment; which is within the maximum demonstrated crosswind component described in POH; and also lower than the insurance policy.During the preflight we did not find any issue would affect safety of flight. Then; we followed the procedure described in checklist and the instruction from Ground Control as every other flight will do.We started to taxi with crosswind correction; everything was going normal and as expected. Suddenly I feel our tail is rising from the right side and the aircraft is flipping to the left and forward; then the propeller stroke on the ground as well as the left wing tip. At the moment we immediately bring power to idle and I made sure both of us are not on the brake or rudder. The whole aircraft was still driven to the left side; and turned 180 degrees into the grass near [the] taxiway.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 Instructor reported losing control of the aircraft while taxiing in crosswind conditions; resulting in a runway excursion and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; 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; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were in position for takeoff on Runway 1R at SFO with an A380 on final for 28R. The aircraft on 1L was cleared to takeoff with the 380 at approximately 3 mile final. ATC waited a few moments before clearing us for departure. We began the process with throttles just settling into takeoff thrust when clearance was cancelled. The Captain did not hear; so I loudly declared abort and ensured we were stopping. The aircraft had only just begun to move and we were fully stopped with the nose just at the beginning of Taxiway M. Configuration was rechecked and after the A380 landed we were cleared for takeoff from that position. No other issues noted.


Second narrative: Started takeoff roll and then clearance was cancelled due to an arriving aircraft. Very low speed reject. Subsequent takeoff received; continued take off from stopping point maybe around 50 feet from original takeoff point. Rest of flight uneventful.


Synopsis: Pilots report of rejecting a takeoff due to ATC cancelling takeoff clearance.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; somewhere near FL250; we experienced the illumination of the WHEEL WELL Fire Warning light and the fire warning bell sounded. The initial indication lasted approximately four seconds; extinguished briefly; sounded [again] briefly; and then extinguished with no further indications. Though the pilots immediately reached for the QRH; the indications extinguished prior to the accomplishment of Step 1 in the Procedure section of the Wheel Well Fire Checklist. There was a disagreement as to whether the checklist items applied to this specific situation (was there any relief from the procedures); as a result of the indications extinguishing prior to the accomplishment of the first step in the procedural section of the checklist. After voicing his opinion; the First Officer asked the Captain to confirm his decisions with someone outside of the flight deck. Upon reaching the cruise altitude of FL340; the Captain called Company. After a bit of coordination and discussion via radio and ACARS; it was suggested that we land as soon as possible. We complied with no further complications. Note: The new Dispatch Release appears to have taken off the Operations frequencies associated with points along the route. This was a distraction.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Flight Crew had some internal confusion on how to deal with an intermittent wheel well fire warning. They decided to divert as a precaution.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training flight with student pilot training for initial solo. Student used improper control input during takeoff; and caused the aircraft to veer off the runway. Instructor onboard was not able to keep the airplane from rolling into the grass; even with immediate control input in attempt to maintain proper takeoff attitude. Instructor was able to taxi the airplane back onto the runway safely; once control was regained. There were no injuries; and no damage to the aircraft or airport property.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor on a training flight with a student reported a runway excursion during takeoff roll.
Date: 201207
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While briefing the T-procedure for EWR Runway 4L; we noticed that the ACARS procedure called for a right turn to 010 degrees. The Company's procedure called for a LEFT turn to 010 degrees. With a runway heading of 039 degrees the LEFT turn makes sense.




Synopsis: A Captain discovered his Company's EWR Runway 4L procedure called for a right turn to 010 after takeoff whereas the standard procedure calls for a more likely left turn.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: A380
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
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Seattle Center cleared our flight to descend pilot discretion from FL340 to FL240. Within moments the Captain initiated the descent using altitude intervene. We were within 50 miles of top of descent and the cruise descent rate initiated at 1000 feet per minute. Within a minute Seattle Center gave us a frequency change and we checked in with a new Controller. Approximately 60 seconds after checking in with the new Controller we observed an Airbus 380 at our 10 o'clock. It had flown across our path from right to left (we were traveling NW bound on the Chins arrival) at what I would guess was FL360. We were descending through an altitude of approximately FL300 when we observed the Airbus 380. About 60 seconds later we encountered residual wake turbulence from the Airbus 380. About 20 seconds later the A Flight Attendant called over the interphone to indicate she may be injured. She requested medical attention upon arrival and after deplaning. Immediately following the Flight Attendant call I informed Seattle Center of the wake turbulence and possible injuries on the aircraft. About 60 seconds later we were contacted by Seattle Center inquiring about the details of our encounter and severity of injuries. I then initiated contact with Dispatch to relay the request for medical attention. I then followed up with Operations when we were on the ground and clear of the runways that medical staff would be present at our gate. Upon arrival at the gate; medical staff was present. Passengers deplaned; and all of the flight attendants requested to be examined by medical staff.Seattle Center never made us aware of the Airbus 380 traffic and because we were in a descent and well below the altitude of the [Airbus] 380; we were not alerted. I will be more vigilant looking for traffic during descents when my vision is blocked by the airframe with pitch attitudes different than cruise. And I recommend extra vigilance by ATC when the Airbus 380 is in the vicinity of other aircraft. They are rare to see and their wake turbulence profile is much larger than even I expected. This event was my first encounter with the Airbus 380.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported a Flight Attendant was injured during a wake turbulence encounter on descent into SEA in trail of an A380.
Date: 201506
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Weather
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: When I first sat down and reviewed the weather for all of my already released flights I noticed one did not have an alternate and the latest TAF (Day 1 XA:47Z) required one based on the Tempo for Broken 1;500 feet and an arrival of XF:23.  I checked the TAF the flight was released on (Day 0 XA:16Z) and it was not calling for the ceiling so it was released legally but appears the dispatcher missed the conditions in the new TAF.  I informed the dispatcher about the issue.  A bigger issue arose when I went to contact the crew enroute about the issue.  I pulled the last release from the computer which had a time stamp of XB:31 from when the crew picked it up.  The release stated it had the exemption and under alternates it said XXY.  Confused; I called the supervisor. He and I went back and saw another release one under the attachments button with a time stamp of XA:05 from when the previous dispatcher released the flight.  It appears that when the crew picked up the release Sabre updated all their weather; since the new TAF required an alternate Sabre went and added the 1-1-3 exemption behind our backs so to the crew everything looked legal.  There was a TAF requiring an alternate and they had the exemption noted on the release so they didn't need one.   How is this even possible? Who knows how many other flights operated with this exemption added without the dispatcher knowing?  Sabre could have added the exemption without the dispatcher knowing and with thunderstorms in the forecast or even to airport that can't legally use the exemption.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Dispatcher discovers that one of the flights that was originally dispatched without an alternate required one at the time of departure. The Sabre flight planning software apparently detected the need for an alternate and automatically issued 1;1;3 exemption without the Dispatcher being aware.