elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed with a very light load and T/O weight of 220;000lbs; which necessitated Min Flt Wt Fuel. Temperature was 33C. It is uphill out of the company ramp; so even at very light weight; you must start 2 engines to taxi. We had an extra long taxi; 24 minutes to the furthest runway. The brakes were getting hot with all the taxing and slowing to turn; as well as lots of downhill.  Company procedure is to NOT use the brake fans until you get an ECAM alert which is at 300c on any tire's brake. As we took the runway and were cleared for takeoff; the warning came on with one brake at 300c. We elected to continue the takeoff; and leave the gear down. The alert went out; and we raised the gear. But after getting to cruse we saw that the brakes were not cooling down; even at altitude. We discussed the dangers of having a brake at 285c; and slowed and lowered the gear; for cooling. We slowed as much as we could to retract the gear; and at 220kts; were under the speed of 240kts; but at Mach .65; we exceeded the Mach limit of .53.We alerted maintenance; and made a logbook entry with full details. The aircraft was checked and remained in service for continued schedule flights. We flew another aircraft under the same conditions and airport today; with an even longer taxi time of 30 minutes. Since the brake fans can only be used with the gear down; my company should allow it to be standard for pilots to choose to use the brake fans BEFORE the ECAM alert; as it can be too late to make a difference in circumstances like this. And with our situation; canceling take off clearance and putting the fans on; and staying on the ground would have been the best course of action; to eliminate the situation we got into; with exceeding a structural limitation of the aircraft.




Synopsis: An A300 crew received ECAM alert for one hot brake just after being cleared for takeoff. They elected to takeoff and cool brakes in the air; but at cruise the brakes were still near the limit. They slowed below Vlo and lowered the gear at altitude; but exceeded the Mach airspeed limitation during retraction.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fumes smelled prior to gate departure after high pressure air was applied to aircraft with Packs on. Smell dissipated after air was removed. Smell came back strongly on descent. The entire crew was aware of the odor. Don't know the source of the odor or why it occurred. Ground crew may need to wait to be told to apply high pressure air to ducts so flight crew can turn off packs prior per checklist.


Second narrative: During boarding crew smelled an oil type odor coming from [the] air conditioning. It was initially thought the source was the ground high pressure unit needed for ground air start due to APU inop. During taxi-out; takeoff and cruise the smell somewhat dissipated. The odor increased in intensity during descent. The entire crew was aware of the odor.Do not know the source of the odor.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported fumes at departure gate which dissipated and returned during descent at destination.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified that the aircraft was damaged by a tail strike 2 flight evolutions prior to our flight. This damage was not discovered on the inbound flight to ZZZ nor by me on the exterior walk-around prior to the flight to ZZZ1. Upon reflection of the exterior preflight; I still believe I saw the tail skid showing green. It is my procedure to step under the aircraft and looking rearward up the fuselage; and then to walk away from the aircraft to inspect the horizontal stabilizers. When walking around the empennage; I then rescan the rear fuselage from both sides and look at the tail skid. It is obvious my recollection is in error. As of this writing; I have not seen the pictures of the damage.I would like to see what the condition of the tail skid to have a better informed visual of what a tail strike looks like when damaged. I will also have to better distinguish between the normal streaky dirt/oil/deice fluid marks that appear in that area of the aircraft and tail strike damage.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported they operated an aircraft that had a tail strike two flights previous to their flight.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching DOMSE on visual approach to [Runway] 19L at IAD; descending through 1;800 MSL an object was spotted at 12:30 position tracking straight on slightly below our altitude. As it passed by the right side of the aircraft approximately 100 FT and below our altitude by 100 FT it became apparent that it was a drone of some sort approximately 4 FT in diameter; saucer shaped; and gold or bronze in color. I made a comment to the other two pilots in the flight deck that it appeared to be a drone.  The Captain reported our sighting to the Tower and the rest of the approach was continued without incident.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reports sighting a drone in IAD Class B airspace during approach.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the STAR going into ZZZ airport. I descended him from 5;000 to 3;000 feet. I turned him base while he was descending to 3;000 feet. When I turned him on the approach he descended through 3;000 to 2;700 feet. The MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) in that area is 3;000 feet. I told him to maintain 3;000 when I cleared him for the approach. He climbed back up to 3;000 feet.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below its assigned altitude and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201808
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: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lost engine power possibly due to fuel exhaustion near the end of a VFR cross country flight. Landed safely on [a highway] without harm to the pilot and 3 passengers or people on the ground.The aircraft was fully fueled to 50 gallons before departing. After 3.5 hours to [destination]; the pilot had 24 gallons of 100 LL added at the FBO. Due to the aircraft being close to gross weight; it was not topped off. Total flight time that day was 7 hours with a total of 74 gallons available.The C172 has an STC that installed a Lycoming 180 hp engine. The pilot discussed with the owner the fuel consumption planning number as 8.1 gph and had seen that performance on previous flights of the aircraft; mostly solo flights. The STC paperwork was provided by the owner to the pilot for computing the weight and balance for the flights. The STC increases the max takeoff weight to 2550 pounds. The pilot loaded the STC weight and balance values into his Garmin Pilot app and used it to compute the weight and balance. The STC paperwork did not include changes to the aircraft endurance; climb; or other performance changes from an unmodified C172.The pilot used 8.1 GPH for planning the flights thinking that he had a total endurance of over 9 hours for both flights. Not completely knowing how the aircraft would perform with the maximum payload may have allowed the pilot to underestimate the fuel that would be consumed. Perhaps STCs should more fully describe any impacts to the aircraft performance.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported landing safely on a highway after running out of fuel.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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 C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Once cleared for the visual approach we were initially at 9;000 feet and set the altitude select to 6;500 feet. Maintaining visual separation from the terrain we entered a base for the visual XX approach.  As we descended with the terrain to the right of the aircraft we began receiving terrain alerts. The First Officer made corrective action by disconnecting the auto pilot and turning further away from the terrain; toward the active runway.  Landed with no issues. It can be difficult on this visual approach to meet stabilized criteria due to the close proximity of the mountains to the runway.  We will be sure to give more clearance to the mountains in future approaches to runway XX to avoid receiving terrain warnings.


Second narrative: Once cleared for the visual approach we were initially at 9;000 feet and set the altitude selected to 6;500 feet. Maintaining visual separation from the terrain we entered a base for the visual XX approach. As we descended with the terrain to the right of the aircraft we began receiving terrain alerts. The First Officer made corrective action by disconnecting the auto pilot turning away from the terrain and towards the active runway. Landed with no further issue. It can be difficult on the visual approach to meet stabilized criteria due to the close proximity of the mountains to the runway. We will be sure to give more clearance to the mountains in the future approaches to runway XX to avoid receiving terrain warnings.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported getting terrain alerts while on approach near mountainous terrain.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A321
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: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After climb out; we set up a restroom break. When I pulled my O2 mask out of the compartment; the hose blew off. I was able to reattach it; but while the First Officer was in the lavatory; the hose blew off again and this time; the retaining ferrule blew off and I was unable to find it. I wasn't able to reattach the hose and the oxygen was flowing out at full pressure. I turned off the crew supply and arranged a phone patch to maintenance operations. Upon conferring with maintenance; we agreed that we could not continue. We [advised ATC] and returned to our departure point where an overweight landing was made. If I had to guess; I'd say some pilots probably remove the mask incorrectly by pulling on the hose; rather than using the red release tabs. Whatever the cause; the hose was loose enough that when I went to put the mask on; the oxygen pressure blew the hose off its connection to the mask.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that an oxygen mask malfunction resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Completed boarding and closed the cabin door; jetway was removed; accomplished checklist and called ramp for pushback.  I was told we would push as soon as aircraft on another gate was clear.  While ready to push and awaiting Ramp Control clearance I noticed the jetway was being brought back to the plane.  With the beacon on and all personnel standing by for push the Agent; without notifying the crew; brought the jetway back to the aircraft. After opening the door; we questioned the agent why she did this; and she said Operations told her to.  We informed her that safety always overrides Ops instructions and she should never put a jetway on an aircraft with its beacon on without first communicating with the crew.  She showed total disregard for our comments and said she will put the jetway on the aircraft anytime she wants or operations tells her to.Any ground personnel with this mentality presents a huge safety hazard to the aircraft as they could put men or equipment in our path just as we begin our push - potentially causing a collision.




Synopsis: While at the gate and awaiting push back clearance; this Boeing 737 First Officer reports that the gate agent; without prior notification; brought the jet bridge back onto the aircraft.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight was a training flight; we were performing commercial maneuvers over ZZZ1 in one of the local practice areas. There was no other plane making a radio call on the practice area frequency and we did not have ADS-B in onboard.  After performing Lazy 8; I have my student level off at 3;000 ft. MSL heading southbound over ZZZ1 while I critique his performance. At that time; my student told me that he looked to the right and saw an airplane coming from that direction heading eastbound perpendicular to our flight path. My student took control and make an immediate descent to avoid a collision. We clear each other by less than 200 ft. I couldn't see that traffic approaching from the right due to my seat position and the doorpost blocking the view. I later saw that traffic after it passes our left wing. That traffic was a low-wing with dark blue color; it looks like a war bird to me. It also did not make any attempt or maneuver to avoid collision with us. I think the main causes for this event were the weather condition; a dirty windshield; and lack of ads-b traffic advisory. The sky was hazy and dark; making it hard to spot any traffic with dark color paint. The dirty windshield also contributes to that too. We also did not hear anyone making a radio call on practice area frequency even though we did that before starting the maneuver.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported having to take evasive action to avoid a mid air collision while in a designated practice area.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 M Bravo
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We left for ZZZ to do takeoff and landings. On takeoff; we were on the left tank; and left the left fuel gauge changed to empty. I pointed this out to the owner; he tapped on the gauge and it showed almost full. We entered the pattern and got no gear down in the annunciator panel I pointed this out to the owner and he said the gear is down and didn't seem surprised. We verify this with a small window on the floor between the front seats. We did several takeoff and landings and never got an annunciator panel gear down indication. The last landing was to be a short field landing. I reminded him not to get below 75 knots until in a low flare and ready to land. Previously his airspeed varied a lot on final. On a half mile final he was exactly at 75 knots. He seemed to be working hard on maintaining 75 knots. I was really focusing on his airspeed to be sure he didn't get below 75. Just seconds before touchdown we heard a 'go-around' on the radio we didn't know who it was for; why; or where it was coming from. No mention of plane type or reason. A few seconds before touchdown we both scanned the runway to be sure there was nothing on the runway. No gear down indication on the annunciator had been routine each time. I was guilty of confirmation bias that the gear was down. Fixating on the airspeed contributed to the incident. At no time during the landing did we get a gear warning or stall warning. In the future if the annunciator light becomes inoperative; I will use the small window on the floor each time in place of the annunciator light.




Synopsis: M-20 M Bravo instructor pilot reported a gear up landing after disregarding a known malfunction with the landing gear position and warning system.