elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, HI
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A KZAK
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was departing HCF airspace from CEBEN to CIVIT; Aircraft Y was going AUNTI; A332 to HELOP with a deviation of 30 miles right of route initially. HCF called back to coordinate 60 miles right of route for Aircraft Y which probed green. Thought it was odd at the time; but the angle of deviation of routes could have played into that factor. Later HCF calls back to say Aircraft Y looks like he's deviating more like 90 miles right of route even though he was only cleared 60; looking like he was a bit close to Aircraft X but that Aircraft Y looked like he was going back to what he was cleared. I probed 90 miles; which showed green; then I probed 126 mile to test the conflict with Aircraft X. That showed red with conflict. Went back to probe 100 miles and that was green so I told HCF that it was probing good. Aircraft Y came out cleared 60 miles right of route but was probing 90 miles right of route to cover his possible deviance. There was no conflict showing till Aircraft X crossed CEBEN. At that time it was flashing red. I thought maybe this was because he was on R463 and not A332; thus I re-cleared the Aircraft Y only 50 miles right of route. I did not probe his originally cleared 60 miles right of route. Once Aircraft Y accepted; the conflict was gone. I could have re-probed 60 right of route to confirm if what he was cleared was still good; but at the time of writing this; I'm not sure if it was. Also not sure why 90 right of route would not set off the conflict with Aircraft X but 126 miles would. Will be more restrictive with deviations leaving HCF and separate more with altitude than route.




Synopsis: KZAK Controller reported that a course deviation by one aircraft resulted in an airborne conflict.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a check airman observation [flight]; we had completed a missed approach. Initial tower assignment was runway heading to 1500'.  After being handed off to Approach; we were given a heading of 180 and 2000'. VFR traffic was called out to our right. I saw the traffic and it appeared to be at least a mile ahead and to our right and on a parallel course. Visual contact was reported to ATC. While continuing to observe this traffic it appeared to have turned toward us at the same altitude. Closure rate seemed to be increasing rapidly and an RA warning sounded. I immediately started a descent when a second warning to 'increase rate of descent' sounded. I increased rate of descent and got a 'clear of traffic' at about 1600'. At this time; the Controller asked if we had descended. I answered that we had responded to an RA. The Controller replied that there was other traffic in the area. We then began and reported a climb back to 2000'.


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


Synopsis: CE-680 flight crew reported deviating from assigned altitude after receiving an RA.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon noticing an oil leak on the number two engine; I spoke with [Maintenance]. [They] seemed to be focusing on consumption; not leaking; and mentioned 16 quarts of consumption since [a previous date]; a reference point which had no bearing on the current situation - a leak on the ground. After continued conversation with [Maintenance] and [Operations]; we agreed to; and I conducted; an engine run. Subsequent to the engine run; the contract Maintenance Technician; found an oil leak on the gearbox.My concerns revolve around [Maintenance's] dismissive approach to an oil leak and; prior to the engine run that I insisted upon; that there was no reason I shouldn't accept the airplane as airworthy. In fact there were 16 quarts of oil added to the engine in 105 hours of operation. Since only a minority of us have the benefit of aircraft mechanic certification as I do; I fear that another Captain might accept the pressure and dismissal of maintenance.It is imperative that for a legal operation and the highest level of safety that we create steps to correct these kinds of events with a high potential of un-airworthy aircraft utilized in the operation.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that a visible engine oil leak was initially dismissed as an oil consumption issue by Maintenance.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON RKSI
Second aircraft: Other
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach at 2;600 FT; cleared for ILS 33L; speaking with RKSI Approach; we witnessed a power glider with orange parachute at 2;600 FT in front of left wing. Two men in black clothing were onboard glider. They turned right to avoid our left wing tip missing us by no more than 100 FT. I felt they were going to hit us or get caught in our wake turbulence after passing. I immediately reported incident to RKSI Approach Control. I called Approach Control on ground via telephone. They copied my report. They reported they were in pursuit of the men at this time.




Synopsis: B747-400 Captain reported NMAC with a powered glider on approach to RKSI.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PBI.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: Tower PBI
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance

Narrative: While turning base to final inside of ZISUR for a visual approach to 10L we had a drone encounter. We were in a descending left turn at approximately 1800 ft. Drone passed just under our left wing. Controllers were notified. A Sheriff Department helicopter was in the air and immediately went to the area; but did not find the drone.It was a black quadcopter of the recreational variety. It was not a commercial type (no large camera). Apparently there was some type of local fair going on; and they thought it may have come from there. Tower requested I call. I couldn't add much more than we told them during the encounter.




Synopsis: Fractional Jet flight crew experienced a close encounter with a drone while on initial approach.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Stall Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Requested priority for flight control malfunction on descent into ZZZZ. For approximately 5 minutes I was unable to comply with assigned altitude and course while regaining control of the aircraft. We received 3-4 STAB OUT OF TRIM Level 2" alerts. Alert would be presented for 15-20 seconds; disappear; then return after a minute or two. Reviewed stab out of trim level 2 in QRH. Late in the descent; roughly simultaneously; AP1 (Autopilot 1) failed to capture final approach altitude of 2;600 feet; descending and FO (First Officer) reported LSAS (Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System) "ALL FAIL" alert; which I was unable to confirm as I was simultaneously manually arresting the uncommanded descent; close to ground; IFR; night in moderate turbulence and rain; slow; configure; determine what if any stab trim was available; and navigate the aircraft to final. Disconnected AP; slowed and configured the aircraft with FCP speed commands and the pedestal long trim handles. Flew the rest of the ILS XXL manually in approach/ land. Stopped on taxiway for inspection by fire personnel; nothing noted; taxi to gate."




Synopsis: Captain reported an LSAS system failure caused control issues on descent and approach to landing resulting in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Tower, MN
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After pushback from gate with the brakes set and starting engines I noticed a tug pushing another air carrier aircraft from a nearby terminal. As the other jet continued the push; its right wing WENT UNDER our left wing by four to five feet. We contacted Operations and reported it and they informed us they witnessed it from their office and would contact the other company. It is a very tight ramp area and I was surprised that Ground Control would OK a push with us parked and starting engines from those gates.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew reported another aircraft pushed back from an adjacent gate after they were already pushed back; with their brakes set and were starting engines. The other aircraft's right wing passed well under their left wing while doing so.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: none; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Due to pilot oversight; my VFR transponder certification went overdue.  The aircraft was not operated within Class B airspace and never entered within the 30 NM veil surrounding any Class B airport.  Additionally; non-towered airports were transited during this period.  The oversight occurred during the Corona virus COVID-19 lock down.  I have instituted a tracking system which will help me to better track future mandatory inspections.




Synopsis: Pilot reported VFR transponder certification went overdue due to COVID-19 lockdown.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Balloon
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At a local hot air balloon event; I landed just past a competition target.  Seconds after I landed; another balloon's basket impacted the top third of my balloon envelope.  The pilot then added enough heat to fly out of my balloon; and away. No damage was done.The local balloon event officials suggested that my landing is what caused the collision.  This is absolutely contrary to the FAR's which state that the lower aircraft landing; has the right-of-way.  The balloon that hit me did not insure enough altitude/distance from me to prevent the collision.  The other pilot seemed to be more interested in 'scoring' on the target; then flight safety. The event officials stated that there was an observer there; saw the collision and did not see any problem and did not talk to the other pilot; did not do anything to prevent this type of issue in the future.




Synopsis: A balloon pilot reported that after landing the upper envelope of his balloon was contacted by another balloon whose pilot then took evasive action.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft had a deferral for Hydraulic 2B. This item required the Dispatcher to perform landing and takeoff considerations for the flight. He did so and made arrangements for Runway 28C in ORD and if this was unavailable; a diversion airport of FWA. I contacted Dispatch prior to departure and gave my concerns with this deferral related to single engine operations related to Engine 2 failure. He informed me it would be fine; and not a concern just land on a long runway. I also contacted [the Duty Manager]; and voiced my concerns of the issue with a failure of the right engine and the aircraft's operation on landing with no operational System 2 Hydraulic. He noted and said it was a consideration and not to worry about it; engineers had considered this. We departed with no issue and landed in ORD with no issues. Enroute I consulted the QRH on several situations; being that the MEL provided no real guidance. I chose the item low pressure on System 2 hydraulics; being that with a failure of the Number 2 Engine; we would have no outboard braking. It lead me to the runway requirements of 140% increase with no reversers (with a failure of Number 2 Engine; and deferral of 2b pump). This failure on takeoff (V1 or greater) would have required a minimum runway of 12;250 FT at 50;000 LBS. Not available at [our departure]. At the very least I should have gotten a takeoff alternate. Our departure data is based on single engine failure with obstacle clearance; etc. But we dispatched with maintenance issues not in consideration of these deferrals and performance. Looking back on this flight; at the very least I should have gotten a takeoff alternate in excess of our landing minimums at 50;000 requiring 140% more runway. Had that not been available refused the flight with this deferral as a revenue flight.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reports being dispatched with the 2B hydraulic pump MEL'd and questioning the runway length required for landing should the Number Two Engine fail; rendering the Number Two Hydraulic System inoperative.
Date: 202007
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger boarding and removed mask at row 3 asked passenger to replace mask at the exit row. Passenger then sits in the exit row and still refuses to replace mask. Ask passenger again to replace mask she then informed me that she was drinking coffee; which she was not. I asked her to step out of the emergency exit row as she could not comply with my instructions. She informed me she was drinking coffee and was not in the exit row. I informed her she was and again asked her to move out of the exit row and replace her mask. After the fifth request she moved out of the exit and replaced her mask.Preventive measures - a federal mandate for mask and enforceability with consequences if passengers don't comply; significant penalties.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported asking a passenger multiple times to wear a COVID-19 protective mask and to not sit in the emergency exit row before the passenger complied.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal takeoff; good plane no EICAS messages prior to departure.  On climb out passing 9;000 feet; we got a 'L AFT ENT DOOR' EICAS message along with the 'ENTRY DOORS' annunciator illuminated. Flight attendants by the left aft entry door reported hearing a pop from the door; [observing] the door handle moving up a few inches; and seeing light along the bottom edge of the door.  Cabin pressure was abnormal; showing a low differential and higher than average cabin pressure for around 10;000 feet.  We felt the pressure surge and higher cabin climb rate in our ears as well.  We leveled off the climb below 14;000 feet; declared an emergency; descended and returned uneventful landing.  Aircraft was 1;500 lbs over max landing weight; overweight landing was soft.  We stopped on high speed [taxiway] off runway; easy on brakes; and passengers remained seated.  ARFF met us; brakes were ok; and we taxied to gate.  At gate; left aft door was left alone; as it would require the Flight Attendant to push down on handle to unarm the door; and Maintenance met us immediately to inspect the door.We don't know why the door popped open during flight; but if there were item dropped along door edges; possibly causing the problem; maybe ground personnel servicing the doors need to be careful that things are not fouling the door.




Synopsis: B757-200 pilot reported a 'L AFT ENTRY DOOR' EICAS message on climb out through 9;000 feet. An emergency was declared and the flight returned to departure airport.