elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Several VFR targets not talking to ATC added to the workload. At the time I had multiple traffic calls for IFR aircraft about VFR's. Aircraft X was level at FL060 direct YEAGR. UIM-L 83 called with a point out landing TYR and a TRL departure VFR looking to pick up IFR. I advised the controller of my traffic at FL060 and told them to stop their departure at FL050. The controlled later relayed that he could not get Aircraft Y stopped. I saw the VFR target and called traffic to Aircraft X. When I observed Aircraft Y at 060 and merged with Aircraft X I advised Aircraft X of this and they stated the aircraft had just missed them. Later clear of traffic I asked Aircraft Y how close the cirrus was and they advised they missed by about 100 yards. More attention to traffic calls; I feel that if the UIM controller had called the traffic to his VFR departure they would not have climbed through my IFR traffic.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller reports of a NMAC between an IFR and VFR aircraft.
Date: 202001
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Through a LOSA observation; Aircraft X main wheel tires were brought to our attention during a service check. The technician noticed that the valve stems that were installed on all of the aircraft tires was a large-bore type versus the conventional small-bore type valve stem. This raised concerns as to the effectivity of the main wheel tire since the small-bore type; through years of experience; have always been installed on Company fleet of Airbus A319/A320. Upon further research; LOSA looked at other tire assemblies installed on aircrafts around the maintenance base and Airbus serviceable tire rack assemblies and found part numbers that were not being reflected in the IPCs for the nose and main tires. Part numbers 1531 and 1584 for the nose tires and 1590 for the main tires were observed. In addition; all tires that we looked at had the small-bore type valve stems.Whether or not this is the right configuration for Company Airbus fleet; clarification is needed to determine effectivity. If the larger bore type valve stem is effective for the airbus A319/A320; one of the concerns is that these aircrafts may fly to a station that may not have the adapter to service the tires because stations are not aware of the two different wheel assembly configurations.I have attached two sets of IPCs; one for the main wheels and the other for the nose wheel tires. The first set reflects the aircraft nose number in question; 4871; 4107). Aircraft X was a random nose number chosen to reflect an Airbus IPC.I have also attached the CMM reference 32-XX-XX which is referenced by the IPC. The CMM has an effectivity table published but I could not find the legend to define the codes. Photos of the larger-bore type valve stems and the smaller-bore valve stems have been attached which came from the aircraft that was in question. A few of the photos were taken from wheel assemblies on the serviceable racks.We reached out to All Fleet Engineer and explained to him our issues. He requested paperwork and pictures which we have not yet been able to forward to him.




Synopsis: Technician reported large bore valve stems installed on nose wheel assemblies and not documented correctly.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Passenger X was removed for testing positive for COVID virus. Plane was not deplaned and sprayed. Passenger was on board 20 minutes with face covering not covering nose.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that a passenger who had tested positive for COVID-19 was removed from the aircraft; however; other passengers were not deplaned and the aircraft was not sanitized.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to [service] low center hydraulic system on Aircraft X. At the start of shift; I saw two identical 5 gallon containers next to each other stored in the fluid service area; I picked up the first can which was labeled hydraulic fluid found it to be empty so I picked up can next to it and serviced hydraulic system. Only after servicing the mistake was discovered that it was not hydraulic fluid but stripper. The supervisor and engineering was notified immediately.




Synopsis: Maintenance technician reported inadvertently servicing hydraulic system with stripper instead of hydraulic fluid; stored in an identical container.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clouds; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was an IFR flight.  I departed doing the FRG 4 Departure and was told to make a left turn to a HDG of 030; which I did; so I thought.  The Controller came back and told be I was on a HDG of 330.  I double checked my Compass and it was 030.  I looked at the Magnetic compass and it showed around 310 and at that time I realized something was wrong. I asked him to give me a turn because my compass was giving me an incorrect reading.  He turned me back towards 030 degrees. I tried several times to reslave my compass and kept asking him to check that I was heading in the right direction.  He asked me if I wanted to go back to FRG.  I did not want to do an instrument approach with the way it was working so I asked to continue into VFR conditions on top and head west because it was VFR to the west where I was going. As I headed west in level flight; the compass started to correct itself and I kept checking with ATC. For some reason the compass or gyros spooled up slowly so when I stopped turning on departure at 030 as cleared; I was really at 330. It is [a holiday week] and there not much I could do; but the aircraft is going to the avionics shop to be checked on why the heading lagged so much in my turn on climbout.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot is informed of a heading error on departure by ATC which is due to a malfunctioning compass system.  In level VMC flight the compass eventually corrects itself and the flight continues to destination.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ1; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed ZZZ2 enroute to ZZZ1; planning to skirt just north of the ZZZ airspace; with two radios tuned to both UNICOMs. I shortly became distracted by two things. 1- A pilot on the ZZZ1 UNICOM was continuously asking if 'anyone was there.' More distracting was a traffic alert on my Garmin 430 and a plane just behind me at my altitude. I elected to turn left and change altitude. Watching the other plane on my ADS-B it appeared to turn with me. I know that the ADS-B will sometimes show 'my shadow' but this had a distinct call sign. I soon noticed that my 'evasive' action had put me in the southwest corner of ZZZ's airspace. I then tuned one radio to ZZZ Tower and turned northeast to exit that space. Further details are fuzzy because about 20 minutes later I lost all electrical power and was dealing with that situation.What should I have done? I usually ask for flight following and certainly intend to continue to do so. That probably would have prevented the unannounced incursion as well as hopefully taken the stress out of dealing with an unseen plane on my tail.




Synopsis: P28R pilot reported an airspace violation followed by a loss of electrical power.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At cruise; clear; smooth. We were assisting a passenger in getting refreshments from the galley area just behind the pilot; when we began to sense a 'burble' that rapidly increased in intensity to near moderate turbulence; rolling the aircraft to perhaps a 45-degree right bank; causing the autopilot to disconnect. The roll caused the aircraft to descend; until I realized what was happening and took manual control; leveling the wings; climbing back to altitude and returning to track. We then contacted Center and advised them of the turbulence; upset; and deviation from altitude and track. The information regarding the location of the disturbed air was passed along to other aircraft in the area.




Synopsis: A C560XL encountered roll inducing turbulence at cruise which caused the autopilot to disconnect; momentary loss of control and a loss of altitude prior to recovery.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Unresponsive engine Number 2. N1 stuck at 95% and would not respond to auto thrust or thrust levers.  No ECAMs associated with this failure. Shut down and secured engine Number 2 and landed.




Synopsis: A321 pilot reported that an engine was stuck at 95% and would not respond to any thrust lever actions.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Ultralight
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was landing on a gravel road. Was about to touch down and the aircraft dropped causing a slightly hard landing. If this was any other aircraft it would have resulted in a slight bounce; however the Quicksilver has no suspension and the rear axle which snapped off is just a thin walled aluminum tube. This caused the nose wheel to hit abruptly and the struts to let go causing the aircraft to nose over. I was alone and only received a minor cut on my left leg.




Synopsis: Ultralight pilot reported a hard landing that resulted in the aircraft nosing over.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We we're flying into AVL at night. We briefed the terrain in the area and decided to use the ILS course and profile to fly the visual approach. The FO decided to get down to the FAF altitude early so he could be completely configured and slowed by the FAF. I thought we were past the terrain so I didn't see anything wrong with that. However there is a hill closer to the FAF than I thought. So we got the EGPWS terrain alert. We disconnected the autopilot and climbed until the alert stopped. At this point we still had the terrain in sight and the airport and continued the visual approach. I misinterpreted the approach chart and allowed the FO to get us down too early. On our 10-7 chart we have plotted a typical EGPWS occurrence that is a different one into this airport. I would like for the company to plot this one. I wrote a report about this.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported that they descended early for the FAF and received an EGPWS terrain alert.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IWS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to descent into a non-towered airport; TRACON advised of traffic at my 3:00 position before terminating radar service and flight following. After 2 to 3 minutes of searching for the traffic; I still could not see them; perhaps due to haze in the area. At this point my ADS-B was now showing the traffic at my altitude on an imminent converging collision course. Unable to see the traffic; and knowing that turning left or right would have kept me in this hazardous situation; I felt that my only safe option given my low wing aircraft was to initiate a rapid climb. However; being at 2;000 feet already had me at the floor of the Class B Airspace. This evasive maneuver caused me to enter Class Bravo Airspace without a Class B Clearance. As soon as I was able to determine that separation between myself and the other aircraft had been achieved; I immediately descended and exited the Class B and executed a safe landing shortly thereafter.




Synopsis: GA pilot descending into IWS non-towered airport reported they took evasive action to avoid traffic and climbed into Class B airspace without a clearance.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Panel
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During my post flight in ZZZ I saw one fastener was not secured in the APU panel. I called maintenance control who directed me to send it in as AOG (Aircraft On Ground); which I did. I happened to speak with the maintenance technician in ZZZ before we went to the hotel.  After returning to the airport [the following day] the same tech was finishing up the paperwork when we arrived. I asked how things went and he relayed something interesting. He said that there were approximately 10-12 worn cam locks on the APU access panel that needed replacing; which he said he did. Two; he said; were faulty cam locks that were glued in place to look secured. I asked if he would file a report to which he responded that he's a vendor and did not have access to the program.  My concerns here are multiple. Primarily is mechanic gluing in broken fasteners to look secure. Second; it would be helpful for the vendors to have access to the program; if not directly then possibly through a steward of some sort.




Synopsis: A CE-560 Captain reported to maintenance a fastener loose on the APU panel. Maintenance found several fasteners loose and some glued in place to appear secure.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pass riding this flight on the new 737 Max. From my seat towards the rear of the aircraft; with seats that appear to be higher; it was impossible to see the Flight Attendant perform the safety demo. It was brought to my attention when overhearing a nearby passenger comment that they could not see the demo asking if they were supposed to be able to see it.




Synopsis: Off duty Flight Attendant reported being unable to see the B737 Max cabin safety demonstration because the passenger seats are too high.