elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off in Aircraft X with lighter than normal weight due to COVID...no passengers.  It was just me and about 1/3 tank of fuel.  The plane climbed much faster than I am used to.  Typically; I fly at gross with fuel and passengers.  On initial climbout I may have ever so slightly clipped ZZZ airspace.  I was with ATC; and given the 'own nav' instruction.  I took that to mean I could continue my climb.  However; that climb may have been just a little too fast.  In the future; I need to be more careful when climbing when I'm significantly below gross.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an airspace violation due to a fast climbing; lighter than usual aircraft.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SRB.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was en route from ZZZ to SRB descending from 7;500 feet MSL with flight following from Memphis Center. During my 500 fpm descent; ATC notified me of another unconfirmed plane I'd already noticed; traveling at a roughly perpendicular path from west to east (my right to my left) approximately 7.5nm ahead of me. I confirmed the traffic and determined with ATC's assistance that I would pass under and behind his track. I continued on my direct descent at 500 fpm.When the other plane (a twin-piston) was at about my 1-o-clock; it took a sudden 120 degrees left turn to point directly at me and began descending on an intercept course. Memphis Center also confirmed this. I took evasive action; increasing my rate of descent and turning to my right. The other plane flew above me; performed a steep turn maneuver; and then flew on my course around 500 feet ahead and above me before turning back to the west. Due to its proximity; I lost ADS-B In information as well as ATC radio. After multiple attempts to contact Memphis Center; I switched to the SRB CTAF on my secondary audio channel and maintained audio on Memphis Center on my primary. Another aircraft was eventually able to inform me on that channel that radar services had been terminated. I landed safely and picked up VFR flight following again on departure from SRB.I believe the other aircraft's pilot must not have checked ADS-B In information or conducted a sufficient visual scan prior to maneuvering. I am concerned with the precision of the intercept they conducted and believe it is possible that the maneuver was intentional on their part.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported observing a twin piston aircraft converging resulted in taking evasive action.
Date: 201908
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On flight; the Dispatcher filed a safety report for failure to notify Dispatcher XXXXXXX of a reroute by ATC that saved the company 20 minutes flight time and 5;500 LBS of fuel. The reroute was lengthy on the input to the CDU (Control Display Unit); terrain study was accomplished; and WSI weather reference was accomplished. The ATC Controller through the ATC routing gave us this route as it was a safe alternative to our lengthy initial route.With weather radar working on board; the T-Storms (Thunderstorms) being isolated I accepted the change. Also; we were dealing with a minor cabin issue at that time. Dispatch ACARs the flight with a reference to the FOM of us being off course by 100 KM. Due to work load; the initial off set was under 100 with it being no more than 120 with an average of about 80. With the CDU showing better times and fuel we accepted.Normally we see the Dispatch send us an ACARs with wording 'Hey I see you got a reroute sending u new [company information request]'.  Instead we got I'm filing a report.....what Dispatcher does that?As a Captain for over years I have never been addressed that way in a condescending; inconsiderate; and adversarial way.  It took our 'eye off the ball' in safely handling the aircraft to an ACARs back and forth because the Dispatchers ego was bruised? Dispatcher should not be allowed to dispatch till retrained. Additionally; we had flown the all-nighter and were dealing with lack of sleep and some fatigue issues.I've had dispatcher fail to notify us of release changes. Should we start a reporting war; or work it out and take into consideration that there are multiple factors going on in the successful movement of aircraft and work together?




Synopsis: Captain reported that Dispatcher filed a company report for failing to notify the dispatcher of a reroute.
Date: 202104
Location: MRLB.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Runway 25 VOR Approach had obvious offset by approximately 5 degrees or more. Flew it in LNAV/VNAV and it was on FMC generated profile while raw data was showing a half dot right of course. Upon sighting airport 4 miles out; it was clearly not straight in but offset considerably. Was able to safely maneuver for landing; Next morning; another airline executed missed approach while on [the] VOR approach to Runway 7 as the aircraft was offset at least 2;500 feet to the left. This made me consider the accuracy of the airport VOR.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported flying VOR Runway 25 approach to MRLB airport and being 5 degrees or more off centerline and offset to the runway.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other parked
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [Operations] advised pilot that [another helicopter] was '10 minutes or so' inbound to [the Medical Center] as well. After departure I received another call from [Operations] asking if I had heard from [the other helicopter]; I responded; 'No.' Landing was uneventful at the helipad. Three aircrew members boarded the aircraft. After performing the Pre-Takeoff Checklist; a crew member requested and we received permission to lift and return to base. As I pulled power; I noticed a bright light flooded the cockpit. I immediately reduced collective pitch and looked over my right shoulder and saw a searchlight and then the undercarriage of a helicopter approaching the parking position from the northwest.I made a call to [Operations] informing them that they had an aircraft landing. They requested that I hold my position. After [the other helicopter] went to flight idle; I made contact with them on area common [frequency.] Both pilots and [Operations] coordinated that [the other helicopter] would remain at the park position until I departed. We departed from the adjoining 'H' without incident.A long term solution would be to develop a universal tracking system where all flight operation centers can see the locations and ID's of all EMS aircraft. Pilots must be ever cautious and diligent when reporting their aircraft's current position and intentions when entering high traffic areas.




Synopsis: EC135 pilot aborted liftoff from a medical center helipad when he observed the lights of another helicopter landing in close proximity.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climbout the oil temperature on the left engine began climbing along with the left fuel temp. About the time of level off at FL270; the left oil temperature light illuminated at 135 degrees. At this time the left fuel temp was approximately 88 degrees. At level off; the left oil temp continued to climb into the 145 degree range. At this point we elected to return to [departure airport] as we ran QRH procedure in preparation of possible engine shutdown. When the high oil temp light illuminated; I started the clock to observe the 15 minute limitation. At the 15 minute mark of oil temp above 135 degrees with the temp light illuminated; we shut down the left engine. We had already briefed the flight attendants and passengers that we would be returning to [departure airport]. It was a nice easy uneventful descent for a landing.




Synopsis: MD-80 First Officer reported left engine oil temperature increased on climbout; resulting in engine shutdown and return to departure airport after declaring an emergency.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had TCAS/RA on short final to runway 34L at approximately 800 ft AGL. We started an immediate climb per the RA and subsequently executed a missed approach. We were VFR; descending on an ILS approach with a cloud layer underneath us. The conflicting aircraft came within 400 ft according what I saw on the TCAS. I never saw the other aircraft. Approach control informed me it was a Cessna 182.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported an RA while on final approach to SEA.
Date: 201410
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When attempting to load an electric wheelchair on a CRJ 700; we noticed safety violations and unsafe practices. The Wheel Chair (WC) is around 300 lbs. and the pit is 10 ft. above the ground. A person has to stand on the belt loader and another person in the pit trying a push/pull maneuver while trying to lift the heavy chair. Doing all of this while ducking under the engine and standing on the belt loader that is sometimes turned on in order to get the WC in the pit. Not only is the WC too large to fit standing up; if turned on its side it may fit; but is against protocol. I see a giant risk and the only way to get it in the aircraft is to go against safety protocols. There is also a high threat of severe injury due to the position the worker will be in while trying to lift and turn the WC. Also; in some cases; the belt loader rails have to be put down to accommodate maneuvering the chair; putting the employee at great risk of falling off the belt; or the chair falling; or worst case scenario; both falling and 300 lbs. of metal and plastic could potentially crush an employee. This is the most contradictory practice we have against our safety culture.




Synopsis: An air carrier baggage handler reported difficulties loading an electric wheelchair in the cargo pit of a CRJ-700 citing excessive weight for handling without mechanical assistance; the inability to load it 'upright' (which he believes to be contrary to regulation) and the need to do so with the side rails of the loader down to accommodate its bulk thus exposing handlers to falls and the possibility of the 300 pound chair falling and; perhaps; crushing handler who fell beneath it.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
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)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival to line maintenance inspected left engine due to exceeded Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) limitations on the takeoff roll in the previous airport. Logbook was signed off and there was an about 15 minute discussion between line mechanics and Maintenance Control if this item needs to be placed on MEL non deferrable and short term repairs. The result of the discussion was no; the item will not be placed on the MEL.Since I do not have a knowledge of maintenance procedures regarding the maintenance procedure; I refer to the flight operations bulletin regarding maximum takeoff policy. The MEL was not mentioned at all so I considered the airplane airworthy since maintenance complied with the required engine inspection per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). Flight left airport ZZZ for our next destination ZZZ1. 20 minutes prior to departure from ZZZ1 I have received a phone call from my dispatcher that Maintenance Control wants to talk to me. Now Maintenance Control wanted me to place that engine on administrative control item. I asked them why it was not placed on MEL in ZZZ by line maintenance; but I could not get a straight answer.After that I have explained to Maintenance Control that this item cannot be deferred by a crew. Contract maintenance was contacted; item was placed on MEL by a contract maintenance and flight was delayed for an hour and a half. Establish a straight forward procedures for this deferral. There was a lot of misunderstanding from maintenance control of a new procedures with a new deferral.


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


Synopsis: A MD-80 engine had an Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) exceedance on takeoff; but no maintenance was performed upon arrival at the maintenance station nor was it MEL'd. During the ground turn at the next out station; Maintenance Control called Contract Maintenance to MEL the engine.
Date: 202012
Location: JLN.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class D JLN
ATC / advisory: Tower JLN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Since the new Joplin Tower was built the beacon light was put on the new tower and as a result the visibility to see the light from a distance at night is very poor. I hangar at Joplin and have flown out of the airport for several years and can confirm the before and after the beacon light visibility has definitely been reduced. I have at times found it hard to locate the airport at night when flying into the airport; even using my GPS. I think the beacon light should be elevated higher up and made brighter.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the rotating beacon on top of the new JLN Control Tower is hard to see at night.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was taxing out via Spot XX with ATC ground control. The Aircraft X flight deviated from the taxi line and taxied onto the X pad to join Taxiway G. During this time period Company Y had deicing truck(s) on the X pad and reported a near miss.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an aircraft deviated from the taxi line during taxi out resulting in a conflict with a de-icing truck.
Date: 201408
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were staffed with five working crew. I assisted the boarding process in economy alone. Concerns for any safety issues or medical issues that might arise would deem staffing/cabin coverage for economy on boarding to be inadequate. One flight attendant to cover 114 economy passengers boarding. I was unable to pick up the phone in aft jumpseat area due to passengers and bags. Should any customer concerns; a medical emergency arise or a safety issue arises during a 'normal' passenger boarding; one flight attendant would be entirely insufficient to manage it. There was one flight attendant greeting at Door 2L; two flight attendants working forward and aft business class and our Purser was covering the forward cabins; pilot briefing; etc. I was alone in economy. Sometimes these flights are staffed with 6; which is adequate. More often; however; these aircraft are staffed with four or five depending on configuration; which is inadequate for safety. It is my utmosts concern that one person for 114 passengers during the boarding process is unsafe in light of current safety alerts/concerns in the news. Several other crew members; including those on my flight have also expressed concerns over inadequate staffing for safety reasons.




Synopsis: A flight attendant expressed concern over the company's willingness to routinely under staff; frequently leaving the boarding tasks for the entire economy section (as many as 114 people) to a single flight attendant.