elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During flight I observed the electronic instruments begin to fail. I was under an IFR flight plan at the time. The weather was severe clear so I decided to cancel IFR and climb to 10;500 and continue VFR while troubleshooting the odd indications of the instruments. After about an hour a couple other instruments began to fail and the AMP meter started to show a discharge when it should show a charge. At that time I suspected an alternator failure. At that time my transponder failed. I realized my route of flight was going to take me directly into Class B airspace so I elected to divert outside the mode C veil and continue to land at my destination.After referencing the pilot operating handbook I determined I would have to crank the gear down manually. I had a couple other airports that I could have diverted to but I elected to continue since I had family members on the ground at my destination that I could reach on the cell phone and utilize to make calls on the Unicom frequency and ensure I would not be a hazard arriving in the traffic pattern NORDO. Approximately 5 miles from the field I began to manually lower the landing gear and was able to talk directly to the FBO via a phone relay with my wife through my blue tooth headphones. I made a pass over the runway utilizing the non-standard comm path to verify my gear was down. The personnel on the ground confirmed that the gear was down. I turned my battery on briefly to see if I could see the gear down light No light or instruments illuminated. I continued the approach based on mechanical and visual indications. Moments after touchdown the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft came to a stop about 100 yards passed the touch down point.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot experiences an alternator failure enroute and elects to continue to destination. The gear is cranked down and a low pass is made for ground observers to verify the gear was down; which it was. Upon landing the nose gear collapses.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a customer passed out in front of the aft lavatories in the reconfigured 737-800. The space between the lavatories is so narrow that we; the flight attendants; in the aft galley could not get around the unresponsive customer to get the safety equipment and grab our AED and medical supplies. Also; there were people inside the lavatories at the time of the incident that could not get out of the lavatory until after the customer regain consciousness and we were able to assist the customer to the aft galley floor. This wasn't an issue with the previous configuration where the flight attendant could easily pass around another passenger in front of the lavatory area. I find this very unsafe.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the new cabin configuration prevented the cabin crew from assisting a passenger that had a medical issue in front of the aft lavatories.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PRB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G PRB
ATC / advisory: UNICOM PRB
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My aircraft 5 miles northeast of the Paso Robles Airport (PRB) inbound for landing and monitoring UNICOM traffic. Two other aircraft reported inbound. One aircraft 10 miles east of PRB; one aircraft 5 miles north west of PRB. Aircraft east advised maneuvering to allow me to enter downwind left traffic runway 19. I made several UNICOM traffic announcements and reported inbound on the 45 for runway 19; left traffic; full stop. No other traffic was observed and no further radio traffic heard. I then advised my downwind abeam runway 19 position. No other traffic was in the pattern that we observed. When about to begin my left turn to base with a descent; my right seat passenger advised 'stop the descent; aircraft going underneath me from right to left (westbound). I stopped the descent and observed a Cherokee at around 800 ft. on a tight base to final turn; landing on 19. The other pilot made a radio position call when on short final; giving his N number. I extended my downwind at that time and called the pilot asking if he was aware that he almost caused an incident? The pilot did not answer my call. The pilot exited the runway and taxied to a permanent ramp tie down. I picked up my car and drove to the ramp where this plane had taxied. The pilot had left the area. We were within 500 ft of a mid-air collision on downwind due to the gross negligence and reckless disregard for other aircraft in the pattern by this pilot. When speaking with another pilot on the ground; he said he heard this pilot make a weak and broken radio announcement when he took off; apparently without regard for other area traffic.




Synopsis: A pilot approaching a non-towered airport is surprised by the close proximity of another aircraft that had not identified his location and seemingly aware of conflicting traffic.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received a 'Steer Fail' CAS message during approach with the gear down. We executed a go around to complete QRH; after completing QRH for 'steer fail'; we had about 3;000 pounds of gas on board; and decided to go back to the same runway. The same message came back; and we landed with steering failed. No emergency declared; we stopped; taxied off the runway and called operations to get a tow to the gate. After minimal delay we were towed to the gate with no further incident. Since we got a tow very quickly; I opted to call maintenance at the gate instead of on the taxi way.




Synopsis: After a go around and an unsuccessful completion of the QRH for a 'steer fail' CAS warning on final approach; the flight crew of an ERJ-170 elected to land and be towed to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During cruise got an Engine 2 Reverser Fault ECAM with no other messages. Having had this happen [to me] numerous times during my many years on this equipment I was not concerned and knew what to expect when referencing the flight manual. Upon referencing the Flight Manual I was dismayed to see that the first action item was 'Land as soon as possible' followed by the next steps which read 'if pressurized engine to idle' with no further direction. I knew from previous experience that this seemed either poorly written or mis-written. A reverser fault never required a diversion unless there were other qualifiers such as pressurized system or unlocked situation. Contact was made with Maintenance; Dispatch; Duty Manager and the A320 Fleet Technical Manager who all agreed that the procedure was improperly written. They concurred that a diversion was not required and a continuation to destination was appropriate.


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


Synopsis: An A320 Engine 2 Reverser Fault ECAM alerted and even though the Flight Manual directed a diversion the crew knew is was not necessary. Dispatch and the Duty Manager confirmed the procedural error so the crew continued.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: MEL; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft was dispatched to ZZZZ with the APU Bleed Valve MEL'd. ZZZZ has no pre-conditioned air for cooling the aircraft. This was a total blunder which resulted in excessive flight deck/cabin temperatures and a delayed pushback. The issue was exacerbated by ramp personnel who had a huge English speaking language barrier. This resulted in gross miscommunication between him and the Captain. The worst part was the ramper not understanding the difference between the air start cart being hooked up; and it providing pressurized air for starting. The cart was sitting there attached to the aircraft idling for an unnecessary 5 minutes while the cockpit/cabin temperatures continued to climb. The combination of no PC air and delayed engine start resulted in unacceptably high temperatures for the passengers and crew. The ramper also did not understand the difference between pulling the external power and pulling the air start cart. During and after pushback he did not use SOP phraseology. The care portion of the safety philosophy that [company] management preaches was completely thrown out the window in this case in favor of perceived cost savings. It should be noted that the APU Bleed Air Valve has been deferred for five days while passing through maintenance hubs; in July! Experience shows that anytime an aircraft is in a location with the ambient temperature above about 45 degrees Fahrenheit there should be PC air or APU cooling available during boarding to preclude uncomfortable cabin temperatures. It is irresponsible to dispatch an aircraft to a location with no pre-conditioned air. The aircraft was actually scheduled to go back to ZZZZ again; but we messaged dispatch and the [Chief Pilot] regarding the issue. Dispatch indicated that the aircraft would be refused.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported APU bleed valve MEL and language barrier with ground personnel not following standard procedures which resulted in excessive onboard temperatures.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
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: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We encountered multiple issues at the SAN station. The flight was delayed due to late inbound aircraft. Immediately after crew boarding aircraft; before preflight had begun and while cleaning crew had just started; the station started boarding; the passengers needing assistance and struggling to stand were piled up outside on the ramp. It was unsafe as the fuel truck almost struck some of them. Luckily the gate agent stepped in at the last minute. The Agent brought a LEO and I had to track her down to ensure the paper work was handed correctly. She did not seem to know the process.The station agent did not know how to close the aircraft door requiring crew coaching. This agent has required help on multiple other flights. This station is struggling and it is creating safety hazards. Additionally the passengers noticed the chaotic events and commented. The stations struggles are making our operation look unprofessional and it's embarrassing. Send the station some staff from stations that are strong like Spokane or Boise on temp basis; to help train/audit the stations overall processes and procedures. Review how leadership is running this station and work on improving its culture.




Synopsis: EMB175 Captain reported multiple service failures at SAN including passengers waiting to board aircraft and standing near the fuel service truck.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Airway C1177 was closed due to a stationary Altitude Reserve Flight Plan (ALTRV) and the departure routes for aircraft departing LAX that would normally enter this airspace were turned off. New routes to SAN airport in east configuration were being issued and most aircraft would need to have it issued more than once. Some weather deviations in the northern part of the sector were starting to develop as well.I was also pulling my own strips for the oceanic aircraft. When I accepted the handoff on aircraft X it did not occur to me that this aircraft was less than 5 minutes from entering a hot ALTRV with no place to turn the aircraft. I think part of the reason it didn't register was the airspace was hot because we work this sector on two different scopes. The red lines I saw on Sector 25's scope are always there and I didn't have any aircraft in Sector 28's airspace so I wasn't looking at that scope. My Assist had just sat down and asked me about the ALTRV. We then coordinated with the Range Control Officer to remove the aircraft from the active airspace.Put LAX Tower on a call for release when C1177 is not available. Correct the automation issue that allowed this aircraft to depart on a bad route. Ensure airlines are checking NOTAMS and filing routes accordingly.


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


Synopsis: Center Controller reported working combined sectors and not noticing an aircraft on a route through Special Use Airspace (SUA).
Date: 201909
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Cowling/Nacelle Fasteners; Latches
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing maintenance to the #1 L/H engine; specifically to [a B737]. One of the maintenance tasks required the #1 Engine L/H outboard cowl to be open for IDG [integrated drive generator] servicing. I noticed no issues opening the cowl. Later that evening I closed and latched the same cowl. Later that night I again checked the engine oil cap and cowl security as I normally do; noticing no issues; to the best of recollection; specifically to the latching security of the #1 L/H engine fan cowl. I had only the forward hold open rod engaged; and rested the cowl against my body for a minute or two while stowing the hold open rod. I lowered the cowl door with no issues; later I moved to the ground and latched the center; forward; and then aft latch. I recall dripping oil splattering lightly on my head from the forward latch closing and using my jacket to wipe my forehead. When opening cowl I clicked the all three hooks into the handle for clearance purposes when closing. Pins; hooks and handles appeared normal. All three latches closed nicely; good torque and a nice secure click when shut. I noticed nothing wrong and was not distracted in any manner. I checked the #1 engine cowl latches more than once later that evening and latches were secure.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that the fan cowls on #1 engine appeared to be properly latched closed after he had performed maintenance; but the cowling apparently later opened in flight.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took over R5 from a developmental when I was giving OJT because it was getting too complex and I needed to clear up 3 opposite direction conflicts. My trainee had given ACR X DIRECT UJGEM and the aircraft read it back. When I took over; I reiterated direct UJGEM. It did not look like he was going as South as he should have. I thought he read back UJGEM. As a few minutes went by and he looked like he was going direct to the KOA airport; I said;'you're not going direct UJGEM are you?' and gave him a turn to the South. He later told me that he was going direct to YUCUV which doesn't even sound the same. I don't know any controllers that use YUCUV. The crazy names are causing a hazard! We need to get better names that mean something. Recommendation; make names that mean something and not just 5 random letters together; this is not the first time I have seen this happen.




Synopsis: HCF Controller expressed concern regarding confusing fix names and how they can be easily misinterpreted by flight crews.