elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took over Aircraft X which was scheduled for a ferry flight later that day from ZZZ to ZZZ1 for storage.  I started reviewing the logbook to find out which overtimes needed to be added to ferry permit; which items needed to be addressed before departure and any other items required before ferry could depart.  I found approximately 4-5 additional items that would be overtime and proceeded to make the open write-ups required and lock log pages for the ferry.  We also [were working] off of for deviations allowed for returning the aircraft to flying condition after storage.As part of this the most notable deviation allowed was the allowance to place (5th stage check vlv inspection) on DIP (Deferred in Place) for 5 cycles and placing one engine hi stage vlv on either MEL XXXXX or XXXXY.  This aircraft already had MEL XXXXY applied when I took it over; the DIP was not created yet.  After a thorough review of all log pages created; items I created; review with planning of overtime items and making sure all required log pages were locked for the ferry; which took over an hour; everything appeared to be in order.  Except for the fact I still hadn't started a log page for placing a DIP on accomplishing the FCD inspection.  Approximately an hour before schedule departure time we created a DIP on Log page for accomplishing remaining steps for AMM XX-XX-XX.  Once ZZZ stated they were done with all work required; I did one last review and everything appeared to be in order so the MFD was sent to the aircraft.  Approximately 45 minutes after the aircraft departed on it's ferry flight; it finally dawned on me about the DIP required and I wasn't sure if it had been accomplished.  I went back and searched DIP log pages and all closed log pages looking to see if it had been accidentally closed; it had not; and was determined the log page was never created and did in fact get missed.At no time was the safety of the aircraft in question so I planned to make the writeup and place it on DIP once the aircraft arrived in ZZZ1 for storage.




Synopsis: Technician reported not completing the correct paperwork for a ferry fight.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ECAM message: Engine No. 2 EGT over limit climbing out of 28000 feet. Complied with policy; procedures; and flows. Shutdown #2 engine; and diverted.


Second narrative: Approximately 25 minutes after departure climbing from 28000 feet to 34000 feet we got a number two engine EGT OVERLIMIT ECAM message. We decided to level off at FL300. After we identified the non-normal; as the pilot flying I called for ECAM actions and we shut down the number two engine. I was the pilot flying and the captain was the pilot monitoring. The captain informed ATC and we decided to divert to the nearest suitable airport. Approximately 20 minutes later; after accomplishing all required checklist; QRH; Landing Performance; ECAM procedures contacting Dispatch and requesting Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) we landed without incident. ARFF determined there was no fire or smoke that prohibited us from taxiing to the gate. Our Flight Attendant crew also accomplished all of their required checklist without incident.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported an ECAM message for number two engine EGT over limit climbing to FL340. ECAM actions result in the engine being shut down and the flight diverting to a suitable airport.
Date: 201406
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Captain said the forward phone was not working right and previous crew said it was intermittent. I was able to make my opening PA; and then we heard the Captain ding us to say cleared for departure. The intercom phone would not work; and the C Flight Attendant jumped up and went to go to the back to have the B make the announcement. The C Flight Attendant quickly started to go down the aisle and before the B said cleared for departure; the Captain took off. The C was clinging to the seats to pull herself forward; and I helped her get to her jumpseat. These next two flights were some off the longest; most frustrating ones I have had. There was no form of communication from the front to the back. As A Flight Attendant; the B had to say the PA's; and when it came time to say arm doors I would hit the call light twice and she would do the announcements. VERY FRUSTRATING. What would have happened if there was an emergency? Or worse yet; if something happened to the C Flight Attendant on takeoff? How would I have communicated to them? You know the worst part of this is this has been like this for sometime AND NO ONE IS GETTING IT FIXED!!!While things may not sound big to those that sit behind a desk; they are to us. We rely on them for communication and safety. What's going on with Maintenance? This plane went through several bases and still was not fixed. Another example; I had water in aft lav not shutting off last week. Nope; did not get fixed so now it gets passed down to some else. I had an electrical short shock me last week; that too did not get fixed and another crew flew that plane getting zapped when they touched the galley. Why are none of these maintenance issues being fixed? Why does it take so long? One of these days; something will happen due to the lack of maintenance and then what? These were very much safety issues that needed to be resolved in a timely manner!




Synopsis: B737-700 Flight Attendant reports being dispatched with the forward interphone and handset on MEL. This results in significant difficulties for the cabin crew and a takeoff with a Flight Attendant out of her seat.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SEC2 fault deferral.  This deferral must be re-evaluated. Taking off with a known flight control loss; particularly the elevator control computer; is unsafe.  I refused the aircraft.  [Maintenance] called me back to advise me that [they] didn't have an SEC and the repair was scheduled that evening in [a down line station].  I regret accepting the aircraft.  I endangered my passengers and crew by flying three legs without SEC2. I even volunteered to extend beyond my FAR117 duty limit just to get the jet to [the down line station] to let maintenance repair the SEC.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported his aircraft was dispatched with SEC2 (a flight control computer) fault deferred; and expressed concern about the safety of this procedure.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through 15;000 feet the FWD EXIT DOOR warning illuminated. I directed the First Officer to run the appropriate checklist. The checklist for the door also led him to run the unpressurized flight checklist. As soon as I saw the warning light I began to level off and advised ATC of the situation. I then requested a descent and vectors back to [departure airport]. We returned to the field and landed without further incident.


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


Synopsis: Dash 8 flight crew reported they returned to departure airport after noting a FWD EXIT DOOR light.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ERI.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ERI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BUF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent; Approach Control assigned heading and altitude of 2;300 feet. Assigned altitude was read back; descended to and maintained. The ILS RWY 24 approach clearance contained a vector and an assigned altitude of 3;200 feet until established on the localizer. Intercept vector was given between the fixes JONLI (3;200 feet crossing restriction) and DEFJO (2;400 feet cross restriction). New assigned altitude on intercept vector was read back; and climb initiated until established on localizer.Approach Control initially assigned 2300 feet; then 3;200 feet.Should have questioned initially assigned altitude of 2;300 feet; since it is 100 feet below DEFJO (2;400 feet). Also could have reported field in sight and accept Visual Approach or canceled IFR.




Synopsis: First Officer reported receiving and descending to an altitude below a crossing restriction ahead of them.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the KORRY 4 arrival into LGA; ATC issued a clearance to cross RIDGY at F270. The autopilot was engaged; in VNAV mode; and on profile for the KORRY 4 arrival fixes; but the actual procedure is published to cross RIDGY above F270; displayed in the FMS as '300/27000A.' I failed to edit the STAR procedure to delete the 'A' which caused the aircraft to fly the procedure as published; that is; to cross RIDGY above F270.The Washington Center Controller informed us when we were 8 miles from RIDGY that 'next time; let's cross RIDGY at F270; next time; listen up.' Then he handed us off to the next controller.I intervened and deployed the speed brakes and steepened the descent. We almost made the crossing; but missed RIDGY by 8 miles after we passed the fix. We then resumed the STAR as published.Identification: We were made to be aware of the situation by the ATC controller and then immediately intervened with the automation to correct the error.Cause: I neglected to change the published STAR procedure to the amended instructions given by the controller.Response: Intervention with automation to attempt to comply with clearance.Suggestions: Follow the standard procedure to brief the STAR and any changes issued by ATC should be crosschecked with the published procedure.




Synopsis: Fractional Captain reported failing to make the crossing restriction at RIDGY that had been modified by ATC on the KORRY 4 arrival into LGA.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VPS.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Other Aerial Photography
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E EGLIN APPROACH
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying West along the coastline; in vicinity of HRT; at an altitude of 2;900 ft.; under positive radar control with Eglin Approach (132.1); another aircraft directly overflew our aircraft in the opposite direction at an estimated distance of 250-300 ft. No traffic calls were given by ATC. (Note: Often there is background noise observed on Eglin Approach Frequencies which can be distracting and makes their comms hard to hear / understand.)




Synopsis: Pilot reported NMAC while in cruise flight.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the flight instructor conducting a training flight for a pilot who was upgrading to Captain. We had just performed a circling approach and entered a left pattern for Runway XX at an uncontrolled airport. The winds were out of the northwest. On short final I saw an airplane; which appeared to be a C172; at our 11 o'clock flying at us. We performed go-around and turned right. The C172 had turned left. We made all the proper radio calls on the appropriate frequency and did not hear anyone else in the pattern. After the evasive maneuver we tried to get a response from the other aircraft that we just avoided. We got a response after several radio calls to them. They claim that they were on frequency the whole time but it's apparent they weren't. This was a great lesson in 'see and avoid' when you are VFR. We fly VFR during passenger carrying operations in congested airspace quite often; and we make it a point to always have one pilot looking out the window when VFR. Specifically; we stress this concept when flying a particular airplane we operate that has a 'glass cockpit.' It has paid off before and did so during this event. I think there were two contributing factors. One; the other airplane was not on the CTAF Frequency. Two; we were landing with a quartering tailwind so if traffic was inbound; and not doing a training flight and circling approach; its reasonable to expect them to land on the runway that's most aligned with the wind. In the future I think I will try to do circling approaches at a controlled airport providing the latest opposite direction traffic restriction doesn't prohibit us from using a runway that is not currently in use.




Synopsis: A PC-12 training flight at an uncontrolled airport experienced a critical near-miss while conducting a circling approach to a runway not favored by the existing wind conditions. No communication was heard from the opposing aircraft on the CTAF frequency until after the event.
Date: 201403
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After one of my colleagues reviewed the records of the operator regarding one of the aircraft I fly; I was informed by said colleague that that helicopter was flown past the 100 hour limit since the last maintenance; on one occasion. I was also informed that the pilot that flew past the 100 hour mark was me. I took off before the 100 hour inspection was due; but I landed 0.[X] hrs after. Maintenance was performed after said flight. I did not pay enough attention to the maintenance status of the aircraft; and maintenance is often performed right before it is due. As a result of that; I was not aware that the helicopter was almost due to the 100 hours inspection; although I fly the aircraft often and I inspect the logbooks frequently; also for teaching purposes. I was complacent with knowing that the aircraft is properly maintained and that there are indicators of impending maintenance in the aircraft's records. Together with the Maintenance personnel; the other pilots and the chief pilot; it was decided that the aircraft would receive maintenance some hours prior to being due; leaving room for errors in scheduling the flights. A new maintenance status sheet will be added to the aircraft operator book; more clear and with a better and simpler layout than the older; so that pilots can easily consult it prior to every flight. The white board in the operator's office with the status of all aircraft will be kept up to date at all times. I will also make sure that I research more carefully the airworthiness status of the aircraft; whether it is a new one to me or one that I fly often.




Synopsis: R44 pilot learned after a flight that the aircraft had been flown past the 100 hour inspection time.
Date: 201605
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lead reported that during the pushback process; a fuel truck failed to stop and drove behind the aircraft. The lead had to 'slam' the brakes in order avoid a collision. The lead was unable to make the vehicle number due to the speed of the vehicle and outside lighting conditions. Incident was reported to operations so the proper department could be notified.




Synopsis: A ramp employee reported a ground conflict during aircraft pushback when a fuel truck drove behind the aircraft.