elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This report is submitted due to concerns regarding return-to-service preparation of our long-term stored aircraft.  This aircraft had a number of issues which precluded an on-time departure and caused us to question the true airworthiness of the aircraft.  Specifically; the aircraft had massively incorrect fuel loading; such that it required ~4+ hours to move fuel to the appropriate; legal-for-flight; locations.  Second; upon the first engine start; we were surprised to see to ECAM Caution messages for 'ENG 1 (and ENG 2) REV INHIBITED.'  Thrust reverser operation was; indeed; inhibited; so we encountered another half hour+ delay while computer settings were changed to allow thrust reverser operation.  (Maintenance Control advised that these messages were likely the result of a release-from-storage checklist item being left undone/missed.)  Our total delay ended up being five hours as our Dispatcher and us concurred that additional fuel was required for our flight to ZZZ due to incoming weather; which added another 20 or 30 minutes to the delays. Our concern is that the number of time consuming and potentially unsafe items we encountered in successfully launching our aircraft suggest that either the team at ZZZ1 was rushed to accomplish these tasks; and/or given insufficient time or staff to complete them.  Another possibility is that the appropriate training and task cards were not been provided?  Regardless of the causes; with so many aircraft coming back into service; it behooves us to look into the events of this return-to-service flight so as to preclude them from occurring again; thus enhancing flight safety.  Simply suggesting an investigation or evaluation of what transpired in this return-to-service flight so as prevent compromised flight operations going forward.




Synopsis: Captain reported long delay due to fuel imbalance and thrust reversers inhibited caused by human factors during return to service from long term storage.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Rotor
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Engine cowling was left open during startup causing a blade to strike and damage the cowling. We were in the process of doing multiple engine starts to complete leak checks and tail rotor track and balance after maintenance was completed. During one start the aircraft failed to start and an amber GOV light illuminated on the warning panel. Mechanic opened the engine cowling and investigated while I completed powering down of the aircraft. The Mechanic returned to the cockpit moments later and asked me to attempt the start again. As the blades began to rotate the cowling was struck. I immediately aborted the start. My complacency of following company policy and completing a check of maintenance done and a walk around was directly responsible for the cowling being damaged. I needed to slow down and complete these tasks even after being asked to try the start again.




Synopsis: AS-350 pilot reported the rotor hitting the cowling causing damage to blades during a maintenance check.
Date: 202102
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Repairman
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were working on Aircraft X. The task was to accomplish work order XX. We were told the new oxygen generators are in a box; in stores. After looking inside the box; I saw none of the paperwork was filled out. When I questioned the supervisor about this; he went to check on my issue. He came back and said he called inspection and they made one sheet to cover all these generators and we were good to go for install. After further review by the techs on my crew; none of these units in the box were usable for the Work Order and would have been expired prior to the run-out date listed on order XX. I did not ever see any blanket sheet for the box of oxygen generators. I have no idea how many of these were installed on the aircraft by the prior 2 shifts.


Second narrative: We are working Aircraft X performing the oxygen generator date check. We have conflicting dates on the oxygen generator service life. Work Order XX states the service life of the generators is XX years and makes no mention of the YY year units mentioned in MM XX. All oxygen generators we changed are the required type.


Synopsis: Maintenance crew reported the required documentation for the replacement parts was incorrect.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the time; I was working Tower CIC. I was monitoring the Local position and the Flight Data/Clearance Delivery/Ground Control position. I observed the arrival sequence on the D-BRITE prior to the loss of separation and advised the Local Controller to watch the speed of the E190 aircraft. An E145 checked on frequency without incident and appeared to be on a normal profile with regard to slowing speed and descending from 3;000 FT MSL. The E190's speed was still indicating 310 and rapidly overtaking the E145. I did not expect to talk to the E190 because of the overtake. We observed the E190 make the turn to final and as he did; he contacted the Tower. The Local Controller tried to determine if the E190 had the E145 in sight and requested that he slow down. The E190 did not have the E145 visually and indicated that he was slowing rapidly. I advised him to break out the E190. At the same time West RADAR was trying to talk in Local's ear with regard to whether the E190 saw the E145 or not. I again; much louder; told him to break out the E190 and he complied. I believe the West RADAR Controller failed to account for the high tailwind on the base leg and did not maintain situational awareness prior to transferring the E190 to the Tower. He was also slow to take corrective action; considering both aircraft were IMC and those conditions were known to him via prior PIREPs. My recommendations would not be appreciated at this point in time because of the current philosophy with regard to the 'new generation' and personal responsibility and pride in doing the job.




Synopsis: Tower CIC described an over-take event resulting in a loss of separation. The reporter indicated the RADAR Controller failed to take into account several factors.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not 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 Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb GEN 2 faulted and would not reset. Tried to start the APU in accordance with QRH. APU would not start. Returned to departure airport for maintenance.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer experiences a generator fault during climb that will not reset. When the APU will not start the flight returns to the departure airport for maintenance.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The ASOS weather on the field was 110/05 4 sm BR clear skies temp 13/12 alt 29.85. We attempted the first approach; where ATC kept us at 2;800 feet until the FAF; per their requirements.  First Officer descended using the automation to approximately 300 feet. The autopilot pitched forcefully down and to the left. He disengaged at the shaker; I took control and executed the go-around. During this attempt; we had the runway lights in sight. I remained at the flight controls for the second attempt where at minimums the field was not in sight; a second missed approach was executed. Center was contacted; with their assistance; we decided on [a nearby alternate] as the diversion destination based on weather and proximity. We began a climb to 5000 feet with approximately 1300 pounds total fuel. Dispatch was notified. We landed at [the alternate] with no further incident.Upon reaching minimums on the second attempt; we noted the fuel quantity and took action to find an alternate airport.Weather was not as expected at the destination; no alternate was provided based on the expected weather at the time of arrival.If presented with this set circumstances [again]; I would not attempt a second approach. I would divert to an alternate airport with better weather.


Second narrative: Weather was showing in the flight release; and on the ASOS at the field it was clear. They had another airplane do a visual just 20 minutes before us; but the low lying clouds came in and [the ASOS] wasn't reporting it.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported an autopilot anomaly forced a go-around and the weather deteriorated during the second approach; resulting in a minimum fuel diversion to the nearest alternate.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I went to the office in ZZZ to get PPE. No one was there. A sign on the door said they were in the gate area distributing supplies; but no one came to our aircraft; so this meant that they left for the day; most probably. This information should be sent to Person X to let him know that his directives are not being followed.Put the supplies in the crew room as previously stated in memo; or have the office manned appropriately; or put masks at each gate for crew access.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being unable to obtain PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TMB.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower TMB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working local south when I placed Aircraft X into line up and wait on runway 9R with a practice approach on a 6 mile final as an aircraft was clearing the runway down field. I then noticed Aircraft Y approaching opposite direction of my runway. I immediately told Aircraft X to exit the runway.  Aircraft Y then turned in between the parallels and went westbound and eventually landed runway 9L. I also broke the ILS approach out to the south as I did not know what Aircraft X was going to do next.Communication and coordination needed to happen sooner as to alert me that the aircraft turned towards my runway.




Synopsis: TMB Local Controller puts an aircraft into position on an active runway in between an aircraft rolling out and one on final. The Controller then notices another unknown aircraft approaching opposite direction; he tells the aircraft that is in position to exit the runway and then the arriving aircraft lands on a parallel runway. Controller did not know anything about the opposite direction arrival.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff on a RNAV departure going north; the Captain and I reached 1;000 FT AGL and starting cleaning up the airplane. The Captain lowered the nose and called for flaps 1 followed by flaps up and the After Takeoff Checklist. As I was going through the checklist; I noticed that the nose was still being lowered and reached a 0 degree pitch with a 1;000 FT/ per minute descent rate. I pointed out the issue to the Captain just before we receive a 'Don't Sink; Don't Sink' message from the GPWS. The Captain immediately corrected and returned to a normal climb/acceleration profile to reach 250 KTS and continue the climb to 10;000 FT.It seemed that the Captain was in a hurry to reach 250 KTS (no known reason) and failed to scan his instruments while doing so. We had no ground or air references to assist in knowing the current attitude of the aircraft. I could have delayed the After Takeoff Checklist and continued the monitor the Captain's hand flown departure until he had stabilized the pitch at a proper speed and climb rate. The only thing I can think of to keep this from happening again is for the company to require all RNAV departures in IMC conditions to be flown by the autopilot. I personally do not like this course of action but it would have kept us from getting the GPWS warning (if the automation is set to climb in SPEED MODE) and in a positive rate of climb while accelerating.




Synopsis: During initial climb the Captain of a CL600-2D24 triggered the GPWS system with an unnoticed 1;000 FT FPM descent at 250 KTS. The aircraft had reached 1;000 FT AGL and the First Officer had begun reconfiguring the aircraft for climb when he noticed the deviation and notified the pilot flying just as the GPWS activated. The condition was then immediately corrected and a normal climb profile established.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was at 11;000 feet and asked for 12;000 feet to climb over weather. He wasn't able to level at 12;000 feet and asked to descend to 9;000 feet. Opposite direction traffic was level at 10;000 feet and was inside of TLH Approach Control. It was handed off to me and asking for a climb to 12;000 feet. The aircraft were head on and approximately 5 miles apart. Aircraft X leveled at 11;000 feet and demanded 9;000 feet for weather. I called traffic at 10;000 feet and head on.Aircraft X advised he was descending without ATC clearance because of weather. I advised the Aircraft X that he was either declaring a Weather Emergency or he was having a pilot deviation. Aircraft X declared he was 'deviating'. Separation was lost. Management said it was 0.0 lateral and 600 feet vertical. Aircraft X descended through traffic and into TLH approach. TLH approach wanted to talk to the aircraft. I shipped him and waited for management to decide how to handle this error. They told me to read the aircraft the Brasher warning which I did about 15 minutes later when TLH approach handed the aircraft off to me.Later when I solicited a PIREP from the pilot of Aircraft X; he said Light Rime Ice and Light Turbulence during the time he descended through traffic.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reported an airborne conflict occurred when a pilot descended for weather even though he had been advised of opposite direction traffic below it.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a visual approach to Runway 9L ATC advised us of traffic in our 10 o'clock southbound at that time we got a TCAS TA ATC instructed the traffic to turn east the traffic maintained his heading south at that point we got the RA to descend I followed the TCAS guidance and descended until clear of conflict. Once clear of the traffic we continued the approach maintaining a stabilized approach to a normal landing. The non-flying pilot did acquire the conflicting traffic as he passed approximately 150 feet above us. The conflicting traffic failed to follow ATC instructions.




Synopsis: Air taxi pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft because the other crew did not follow ATC instructions.