elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
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: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Due to the world pandemic; national health emergency; and concept of social distancing; I decided for the safety of our passengers and flight attendants not to do a cabin service during our flight. I had the same flight attendants the day before and we discussed how we could best; and safely; manage our long flight to ZZZ1. As I approached the ZZZ Operations Agent; I presented the idea to him and asked him if he was comfortable making an announcement to the passengers to encourage the purchase of drinks or snacks as needed for the long flight. He seemed to understand and was willing to make an announcement.Once down the jetway; I was approached by two ZZZ station managers who expressed concerns with it not being company policy and that it might panic our passengers. I assured them that I understood and if they were not comfortable making the announcement; that was fine. One of them suggested that a modified announcement could be made to encourage getting something to eat for the long flight. I agreed and said it was their call on how to handle it. During my preflight preparations for the flight to ZZZ1; I received a call from the Chief Pilot on call. He asked if I had permission from someone at Company for what I was doing.I shared with him the timeline of how over the last four days I had tried to get Company approval; and also discussed my reasoning. He did not agree and said it was not Company policy. I reminded him that this was a national emergency. My understanding of the conversation's conclusion was that I have Captain's authority to do what is safe for the flight; but need to be ready to explain what I did. I told him that I understood. The flight to ZZZ1 was uneventful and we passed out cans of water at the halfway point. The passengers seemed very appreciative of our efforts and approach to the pandemic upon deplaning.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the crew made the decision to suspend in-flight service for COVID-19 social distancing reasons contrary to company policy.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a training flight with a student pilot who does not yet have a student pilot certificate.  This was our ninth flight together during which we practiced landings; steep turns; VOR course intercepts; and navigation. After completing our training for the day; we were departing the training area and on our way back to the airport.  While listening to ATIS outside of the Bravo airspace we had engine trouble which led to engine failure.  At the first sign of engine trouble the flight time was at 1.6 hours. We began the flight with an estimated 2.5 hours fuel on board (~20 gallons).  I estimated that at the time of engine failure we had used approximately 14 gallons of fuel and had approximately 6 gallons of fuel remaining or at least another 45 minutes of fuel aboard.  Nonetheless; I assumed control of the aircraft and turned back [toward a nearby airfield we had just passed].  We declared an emergency due to engine failure and landed the aircraft in a farmers plowed dirt field.  There were two souls on board; neither of whom received any injuries.  Also; no damage occurred to the aircraft.  The following day a Mechanic from the FAA inspected the aircraft on the field and found no mechanical problems with the aircraft and presumed the engine failure occurred due to fuel starvation.  Fuel was added and the aircraft was flown under its own power off the field back to base.  It was then returned to service.I believed that a fuel leak could have been a contributing factor to the incident as I am certain we began our flight with approximately 20 gallons aboard.  I was shocked to know that the engine failure occurred due to a lack of fuel.  We had only been in flight for 1.6 hours and the aircraft only burns approximately 6.9 gallons per hour.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot and his student suffered engine failure due to fuel starvation.  They had estimated they had 2.5 hours of fuel on board at departure; yet the engine failed only 1.6 hours into the flight.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our approach after selecting Flaps 20 on a visual approach; the Status message SLAT/FLAP MAINTEN message appeared on the EICAS. A Go around was executed. The QRH was referenced and the procedure completed. We elected to divert to land at an airport with longer runways; and with crash and rescue services. The company was contacted and the proper coordination was made. An emergency was declared with ATC as a precaution. The QRH directed us to do a zero flap landing procedure. A landing assessment was completed by the crew. Company decided that PIC should make the landing. Landing was uneventful. No evacuation was necessary.




Synopsis: G200 First Officer reports a diversion to an airport with a long runway after a status message SLAT/FLAP MAINTEN appeared on the EICAS during approach.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MROC.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MROC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival into MROC while dodging buildups and thunderstorms; we were cleared to fly the VOR DME Runway 07 to transition to the (RNAV-F) Runway 25 after TOMAS to land on runway 25. Neither pilot had ever accomplished this combination approach/circle VFR maneuver before. We broke out of the weather and maintained VFR from CYRUS inbound at 4;000 feet. At the time we were Flaps 10 and 160 knots. We should have been fully configured per company policy as we were actually 1;000 feet AGL. The normal urgency was not present as we were not yet abeam the field straight and level on downwind and we were more concerned with the approach being flown correctly; our situation awareness with respect to the mountains and the weather. As the 1;000 foot annunciation sounded; I directed the First Officer to climb up 200 feet to place us above 1;000 foot AGL and we established final configuration in straight and level flight; well before midfield downwind. I felt this was the more prudent course of action rather than executing a missed approach into weather and mountainous terrain in all quadrants from this unfamiliar location. We maintained VFR throughout the misstep and correction and the remainder of the approach and landing was normal.We should have executed the VOR DME approach as if we were landing on runway 07; configuring the aircraft correctly; rather than flying the approach as if it were the feeder to the RNAV approach. We thoroughly debriefed the event after landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported not fully configuring the aircraft at the appropriate time per company procedures during a circling maneuver off the VOR DME Runway 07 at MROC to land Runway 25. The procedure calls for the pattern to be flown at 4;000 MSL which is less than 1;000 feet AGL.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On arrival into Seattle ATC advised we were following a heavy 767. They made approach and landing on [Runway] 34R; and we landed 34L. On arrival just past FOOTT intersection I shallowed our descent rate; and re-VTO'ed (vertical guidance to waypoint) with a 3.4 degree glide path to remain above the heavy. Cleared for the visual I disengaged autopilot; and intercepted slightly wide and high on glide path. Wind was out of the east at about 15 kts; which I knew could push their wake into us. At about 4;000-5;000 ft we got substantial roll to the right; and slight pitching. We countered the roll and continued. The FA's (flight attendants) were seated and we heard no passenger complaints; though one of the forward passengers asked what that was; which I told him was wake turbulence. Even with my precautions of trying to stay above and wide; slowing a little more for better separation; and asking for more spacing from ATC; who was trying to keep us fast.




Synopsis: Medium Large Transport Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival to SEA in trail of a B767.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other On Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I changed three main tires on aircraft that night. [I] had the work card with me. I just got complacent and just made sure the Number-4 tire had the inner bearing on and didn't look at the outer [bearing] on. I must have gotten two inner [bearings] from [Parts] stock. Upon landing; the brake seemed to fade in ZZZ1; [so Maintenance] took off the wheel and found that two inner bearings were installed [at the outer bearing position]. I was complacent and didn't make sure the outer bearing was the outer bearing. The one from stock wasn't an outer bearing. Not really sure; I think the Main Landing Gear (MLG) Shock Strut was changed; the tire was [replaced]. Was my fault; I need to take my time and look at both bearings. Aircraft damage.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) was informed he had installed an inner wheel bearing at the outer wheel bearing position for # 4 Main tire on a DHC-8 aircraft. Brakes seemed to fade upon landing after Mechanic had replaced three main tires.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Weather; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I climbed Aircraft X to FL400. Based on aircraft performance; I expected the aircraft to be level by the boundary. There were a lot of deviations and rerouted aircraft in my sector adding a lot to the complexity of the sector. I didn't notice Aircraft Y coming northbound at FL390. I switched Aircraft X to ZTL. When the conflict alert activated; I saw that the only solution was to turn Aircraft Y to the right. I turned 20 right and called the BADIN sector right away to tell them. I called several times and they never picked up the line. No separation was lost (due to my turn) but I never officially got permission to turn in their airspace.TMU has to come up with better plans than to constantly keep traffic in Area 5 when there is weather. The complexity of the sectors go through the roof with their asinine ideas to get traffic through with virtually no restrictions. I was so distracted by the huge departure push over MOL that I missed a simple thing.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller reports of a airspace deviation that is caused by flight deviations and traffic workload in the sector.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BKL.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D BKL
ATC / advisory: Tower BKL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Myself and two close friends flew to BKL for the day to [attend an event]. After arriving back at the airport; I paid for the fuel; did my preflight inspection; got the ATIS (which made no mention of any TFR in effect); spoke to ground (who also made no mention of a TFR); who then handed me off to tower (who also made no mention of a TFR in effect over the airport from surface to 3;000 feet AGL).After receiving clearance for takeoff and a left hand turn towards my destination; I asked the controller for permission to circle momentarily around a local yacht club which was approximately two miles west of the airport. He replied that it was 'up to me.' While over Lake Erie; approximately half a mile from shore; I descended to 800 feet AGL so my passengers could take a photo of the yacht club. At that moment I heard a transmission from an unidentified source (either the tower or another aircraft on the frequency) informing me that I was in an active TFR. I immediately started a climbing righthand turn out over the lake to get out of it as soon as possible. Following that; I requested for a frequency change; and contacted Cleveland approach; who gave me a transponder code and initiated flight following to the destination.The main contributing factors were that I had not received an adequate preflight VFR briefing. I understand that FAR 91.103 states that I must become familiar with all available information for the flight. We were in a hurry to get home and I knew it would be VMC the entire flight; so I omitted a preflight briefing; and as a result; I departed from a controlled airport that was under a TFR.




Synopsis: A C172 pilot reports departing BKL and discovering airborne that the airport is under a TFR. There was no mention of the TFR on ATIS; Ground; or Tower. The NOTAMS were not checked.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in flight deck area we were advised by maintenance personnel that they were working on a tire change. They had the cockpit placarded against using systems and verbally requested we not board or use the APU. We relayed this information to our flight attendants. After about 20 minutes the lead flight attendant notified us that the gate agent had received word from maintenance that we could begin boarding and that it was in process. About one minute later a maintenance worker came into the flight deck and wanted to know why we had begun to board when he had previously told us not to. He said someone could get killed. The Captain advised him that we were told by the lead flight attendant that the gate agent said maintenance had told her it was ok to board. I then left the flight deck and went to the gate to speak with the agent. I notified the agent that they were not to board. Maintenance was still changing a tire and the plane was on jacks and the maintenance crew said someone could be hurt or killed if the jack failed.I feel that there is too much pressure to get the plane out on time. If the gate agent had spoken with the cockpit crew or field maintenance with his boarding concerns instead of relying on a third party to expedite boarding he would have realized that by boarding passengers he could negatively affect safety. There was clearly a placard in the flight deck and maintenance personnel were on the ground and in and out of the aircraft several times.There needs to be better communication between the agents who are always pushing to board; the mechanics who need time to do their job; and the pilots who are trying to complete their preflight duties while coordinating with all the parties. Ground maintenance should be the ones to notify the tower when they are done.  Ground maintenance should then contact the flight crew to say they are going to allow boarding. Then the agent should be notified to board. Why are we in a hurry to get someone hurt?  Maintenance needs to be done and done safely. The flight was already late. Boarding should NOT be the priority. Safety should be the priority and the flight crew should be notified directly by maintenance before an agent begins boarding.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a gate agent started to board a flight even though Maintenance had requested the aircraft not be boarded until a tire change was completed.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEE.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SEE
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I departed MYF VFR and prior to departure asked to get a handoff to Socal Approach. Ground control advised that I ask for an early handoff. Tower cleared me for a takeoff on 28R and a right downwind departure. On the downwind I asked for an early frequency switch but was not granted one due to two traffic calls. Once I departed the airspace to the east I needed to make a 360 degree turn while I contacted Gillespie Field Tower to transit their airspace from 1800 feet in a climb. I told MYF tower I was doing the 360. SEE tower they granted permission for the transit and once I flew out the top of their airspace I checked off and called Socal Approach. In the area the airspace for aircraft transit; not in radio contact is between 2400 feet and 4800 feet so the airspace is compressed. As I checked on with Socal I heard the conflict alert in the background and saw a twin in my 1 o'clock position; opposite direction; descending. As I broke left the controller asked me about the conflict alert and I commented that 'I just saw the aircraft go by'. I am not sure if the other aircraft; a twin going into MYF; saw me or maneuvered. In any event we passed each other about 200 feet horizontally (the twin to my right) and maybe 100 feet vertical (the twin above me) with a closure rate of about 250 KIAS. The controller commented that it was a twin engine aircraft going into MYF. Controller then granted me clearance through the class B and I continued on course to Julian (JLI) VOR thence to PRC. My observation is that the compressed flyway over top of SEE requires significant vigilance as it requires aircraft approaching MYF from the East to level off above Gillespie Field; and Eastbound aircraft departing MYF to climb through that same hole. In the future I will file IFR to attain more complete ATC services from Socal Approach.




Synopsis: C177 pilot reported an NMAC with a light twin during departure from MYF.