elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pax Seat
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: One night; an Airplane Maintenance Technician (AMT) was troubleshooting a seat issue on a 777 when one of the seat actuators inadvertently moved. The AMT had his thumb amputated on the spot. My question is; if the company truly cared about safety for the employees; how is it that the company has stayed silent on this event? While all the facts of the case aren't known; I'm sure the company could have issued some type of alert to make sure this did not happen again.




Synopsis: An AMT's thumb was amputated when an actuator on a passenger seat he was working on inadvertently moved.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Reaching cruise altitude; ZSE cleared flight to WINEN waypoint. We then commented on how the Controller pronounced the waypoint wrong as we thought his intention was to clear the flight to WYYNN waypoint due to early hours. Soon after; we received short vector for traffic. ZSE then re-cleared us to WINEN and we re-entered WYYNN and read back the pronunciation for WYYNN waypoint. In retrospect; the Controller pronounced his intended waypoint correctly; but I replied with his pronunciation the first time even though I thought he was incorrect in pronunciation. My understanding; at the time; was the Controller was clearing the flight to WYYNN and pronouncing it as WYNN-N. Several minutes later; the Controller queried us as he showed us off course. We replied we were previously cleared direct WYYNN and doing the same. He then advised us that we were now cleared to WINEN as filed. He went on to say that this occurs 'all the time' and they were trying to 'get it fixed.' The flight proceeded as filed and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported navigating to wrong waypoint WYYNN instead of WINEN due to communication issue with ATC and fix name similarity.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aero Commander 500 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lost all electrical power at cruise; just south of ZZZ while IFR on ZZZ1 approach. Turned south and returned to ZZZ2; 3500 ft.Just had new radios installed at ZZZ3 and initially thought that caused the failure.Made approximately 10 cell phone calls to notify ZZZ3 tower. Finally got my wife and she called Company Avionics at ZZZ3. Word did not get to the tower until about the time I landed.Circled the airport and they gave a green light; but the beam was too weak to see. I observed 3 aircraft waiting to depart and figured they were holding for me (which they were) and landed.When on the ground I discovered alternators were turned off.I have 3 other airplanes and the alternators are never turned off.This airplane POH is to turn alternators off at shutdown and back on after cranking.I flew the plane that morning and came back to the radio shop to have programming changed to the way I have it in another plane I own.Alternators were undoubtably turned on and I turned them off; as I thought I was turning them on. Indicator lights are just to the right of panel and I obviously did not notice. Batteries were weak; as I had to be jumped off. I did notice the 3 green for gear were dim when I disengaged the gear lock for take off; but thought the alternator would bring the batteries up.I had iPad; cell phone and ForeFlight for back-up with me.




Synopsis: Pilot reported depleting the aircraft batteries in flight after failing to  turn the alternator switches to On after engine start.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight was re-routed by ATC. Received call today at from a Captain asking for dispatcher who worked flight (I only flight followed;) voicing concern about the re-route because it added nearly an hour to the flight (his words) making for a long trip for only a 2 man crew and also the re-route was because the filed route went through restricted airspace. I checked the route originally filed and while there is a restricted area nearby; the route did not go through it; though it did go through a surrounding warning area. Explained that to the Captain; but not being the one who released flight initially; have no way of knowing if revised route was coordinated and/or approved by [Foreign] ATC. Captain is going to reach out and contact the dispatcher who initially released flight. Another flight [that] was filed on same route through this area and similarly re-routed; though that flight was held down in altitude and ultimately had to land short of destination for fuel.I cannot state what the cause of the event was. I took over these flights after they were released and only flight followed them; re-calculating burns as needed for the re-routes; and in the case of [the other flight] making every attempt to make it work to reach destination before finally deciding with concurrence of Captain to stop short for fuel stop.Not knowing what caused this to happen in first place; I can't say. I don't know if coordination/approval was obtained from [Foreign] ATC for this routing or not since it did involve off airway; point to point flying. Without this knowledge; or what was looked at during the initial planning/release process; I can't address a cause or how to prevent it.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported a 777 Captain was unhappy because original flight plan required a reroute enroute; adding flight time and increased fuel burn.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Nacelle Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to our first flight of the day I was informed by Maintenance that our aircraft was an air return the previous evening due to a false overheat light on the right engine.  The previous crew had shut down the engine and and returned to the airport single engine. After touchdown the aircraft blew two tires and Maintenance spent the entire evening taking care of and trouble shooting the aircraft.  Their conclusion was that the overheat light was a false indication and; after having run tests; the system was checked and found to be working properly. After having been briefed by Maintenance; we proceeded with our preflight of the aircraft. After we pushed off the gate and had started both engines we noticed the #2 engine overheat light flicker but then remain off. We then tested the warning system again and it tested without fault. We then taxied out for departure and briefed that if we were to get that light on takeoff roll we would continue based on the history of the warning system and then check other indications after being airborne. The takeoff was normal and we continued on the departure per ATC instructions. After climbing through approximately 6;000 FT the right engine overheat warning light illuminated again. We leveled off at 10;000 FT and informed ATC that we would have to return due to the nature of our situation. We declared an emergency and conducted the engine #2 overheat warning QRH procedure after which the light extinguished.  We then tested the system for any faults. The system tested good and all engine instruments were showing normal with normal thrust on #2. The light never again illuminated the rest of the flight.We were then vectored for a visual approach. We landed below gross landing weight and proceeded to the gate.




Synopsis: The flight crew of an air carrier aircraft returned to their departure airport after receipt of an engine #2 overheat warning light.  The event duplicted a return to the airport for the same reason by the previous flight crew the night before.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FPR.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duke 60
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FPR; Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA; Tower FPR
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While descending thru broken clouds on vectors for a visual approach to RWY 10R at FPR on an IFR flight plan; in contact with Miami ATC; ATC instructed to report airport in sight. I advised that we were IMC and was then cleared to lower; 2000 FT if I recall correctly. A few moments later we broke out from the broken layer at approximately 3000 FT MSL and I reported the airport in sight and was instructed to contact Fort Pierce tower. I switched frequencies and immediately received a TA (Traffic Advisory System (TAS) equipped). Numerous aircraft were displayed within the 6 mile ring; but we received a yellow TA directly below at 300 FT. I arrested the descent; but the traffic came within 200-300 feet directly below. The frequency was very busy and it took a few moments for me to establish contact with FPR tower. I believe Fort Pierce Tower was in contact with the conflicting aircraft based on one of the tense exchanges taking place. Once I checked in with the tower I was immediately cleared to land on RWY 10R and landed without any further drama.Upon establishing contact with Fort Pierce Ground control and receiving taxi instructions I made a comment to the Ground controller about a concern of a near miss. I was given a phone number for Miami ATC. My concern primarily was that while on Vectors with Miami ATC I was not given any traffic advisories prior to the onboard TAS TA. It seemed I was vectored into the conflict.




Synopsis: BE60 pilot experiences a NMAC after descending through a broken layer under ZMA control. The traffic is not reported by ZMA nor sighted by the reporter but is detected by the onboard Traffic Advisory System.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C206 called Ground Control requesting taxi instructions to the active runway. The C206 did not state he was IFR or VFR; I taxied the aircraft to the runway and told the aircraft to contact Local Control. I later saw the C206 was IFR. I immediately called the TRACON and got an IFR heading and told the Local Controller. Pilots [should] understand the importance of forwarding the correct Flight Plan status to ATC.




Synopsis: Ground Controller described a confused Flight Plan status event when an IFR departure was initially handled as a VFR but changed after the IFR status was verified.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Windshear; Thunderstorm
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on wide downwind for CAT 3 ILS Runway XXR; noticed thunderstorms building west of field and through the southwest moving east rapidly. This was unusual because A. We were in CAT 3 conditions; B. It was the morning; C. It was cold outside 6 degrees and; D. Heavy rain had been occurring for 24 hours and the air mass was already moisture saturated. Not normal conditions for convective activity. We used the blue pages in the QRH for windshear precautions and judged it safe to continue. On final the leading edge of the thunderstorms appeared to be just north of [Runway] XXR by less than 1 mile. We decided to proceed with caution and increased our approach speed and selected flaps 3 as per the QRH suggestions. Note at this time there were no microburst alerts or windshear alerts because the surface winds were amazingly CALM. The winds at 3;000 FT on final for [Runway] XXR were 200/57; a 55 KT tailwind. We configured early; gear down outside the IAF. On the Tower frequency we heard an A-330 flight...go-around and an A-319...go-around; so we already had it in mind to be prepared and reviewed the Go-Around Call Outs from the Pilot Handbook. Just inside the FAF HAYOU we experienced what determined to be an actual windshear event at 2;000 MSL; decreasing tailwind; increasing headwind; severe turbulence; and a forceful downdraft. I immediately executed a go-around; but did not use the Windshear Escape Procedure because we had no aircraft indication of windshear - no predictive or reactive windshear alerts - yet I felt sure we were in a windshear event from seat of the pants and instrumentation feedback. [We were] lured into thinking these thunderstorms were not intense due to ambient wet meteorological conditions; and low temperatures; and a saturated air mass. Also there were no microburst alerts on the surface due to calm winds. [We] should not have proceeded with the approach.




Synopsis: A319 Captain noted thunderstorm activity near destination airport; but elected to continue due to apparent air mass conditions that were not conducive to convective activity. A go-around was initiated at 2;000 FT due to windshear encounter.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise; about 40 minutes from landing; the First Officer noted the right hydraulic quantity going to zero. We followed the QRH procedures; declared an emergency; advised Dispatch; talked to Maintenance Control and briefed the flight attendants. We selected the longest runway for landing; successfully accomplished the emergency gear extension procedure; landed; stopped on the runway; had the gear pinned and were towed to the ramp. We landed at about 120;000 pounds.




Synopsis: Less than an hour before landing the flight crew of a MD-82 lost the right hydraulic system due to loss of fluid.  They followed appropriate procedures; landed safely at their destination and were towed to the gate.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff [from] RWY XXL at ZZZ; about 150 feet before gear up selection; number two engine lost all the thrust. [We] completed [the] Engine Out After Takeoff Procedure. After calling no 'Quick action and ECAM exception;' Captain transferred aircraft controls to me. Completed QRH and overweight landing calculations; [we] did not need to shut down engine because no damage indicated. I landed safely to ZZZ RWY XY.


Second narrative: Lost thrust in Number 2 engine on takeoff from ZZZ. At approximately 150 feet AGL; loss of thrust on Number 2 Engine. [We] completed QRH for our particular situation and returned to ZZZ for a single engine landing. No other incidents or events occurred after.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported losing thrust at 150 feet after takeoff prompting an immediate return to land.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach into MIA Runway 9 with windshear advisories in affect and heavy thunderstorms about 2 miles from the field; the Captain flying found himself too fast to extend final landing flaps by 1;000 FT so he pitched up the aircraft which placed us high on the glideslope. After extending final flaps he attempted to dive for the path by idling power and pulling the speed brakes. At this point I stated that he should consider a go-around because I did not see how he could stabilize this approach. At 400 FT I observed the following un-stabilized approach characteristics: Airspeed Ref+20; Sink rate Aural Warning; PAPI indicating 4 red; speed brakes starting to retract; throttles near idle. At this point; I commanded a Go Around twice; but the Captain under his Flight Manual authority; 'Captain's Responsibility for operational control;' overrode my command. After the Captain made it clear that he was overriding my command for a Go Around; I stated one more time that the approach was unstable and that he should execute a missed approach. On the ground I advised the Captain of the parameters that I observed and why he should have aborted the approach; he stated that there was plenty of runway available to recover the approach and land. I also stated that we should file a report and we could expect to get a call. This situation created a clear conflict between the Flight Manual that the Captain's 'order stands; it is to be followed'; and the Operations Manual Section 'Go-Around requirements. The directed go-around will be executed unless an emergency situation overrides.' As the First officer; once the Captain overrides my advice; I am relegated to survival mode. In other words until I feel that my life is in danger and hope that it is not too late; I am along for the ride. That is not a comfortable position to be in.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier First Officer reported that his Captain; the flying pilot; refused to execute a go around during an unstabilized approach.