elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202005
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was contact by the ZZZ warehouse to reopen the DSTG (departure staging guide) for the flight; I advised the warehouse the current policy prohibits the Load Planner from re-opening the DSTG. The only exception is to have the flight departure time adjusted by 2 hours to allow for a DSTG re-open. I sent an email to the Cargo Leadership to call the Operations Manager to discuss delaying the flight in order to reopen per policy. The flight was re-quoted with a 2 hour delay to allow for the DSTG to be reopened. Once cargo [operations] completed their transactions; the flight was re-planned by the Load Planner and a new DSTG sent to the Airport Operations. The Operations Manager then restored the original departure time. This action circumvented the Safety Policy put in place. In talking to the Load Planners; there seems to be a pattern with Cargo and/or Operations Managers when it comes to reopening the DSTG. There is a belief that this policy does not make business sense. This 'game' could lead to a significant weight error or catastrophic event. Since I was the Shift Manager on duty and I gave permission to open the DSTG.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground manager reported potentially hazardous practice of circumventing load planning established company procedures.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After engine start; we had a REVERSER light for #2 engine on overhead; ran QRH and began to return to gate for Maintenance. At that time; an aircraft behind us reported that they observed a tailpipe fire on the #1 engine. We did not have any flight deck indication of a fire. We ran the QRC and QRH for an engine tailpipe fire. After parking on the gate; ARFF showed up and confirmed that there was not presently a fire. The ground crew also reported that there was a flame coming from the back of the #1 engine and it went out.  We deplaned and contract maintenance inspected the engine and found there to be no damage from the reported fire.




Synopsis: First Officer reported #2 Engine REVERSER light illuminated on engine start with a subsequent tailpipe fine on #1 engine; causing a return to the gate.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Other unknown
Operating under: Other unknown
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain was flying. We got switched from the ZZZZZ to the ZZZZZ1 arrival and told to keep 300 knots. ZZZ was busier than normal since COVID and we got task saturated. They cleared us for the ILS XX approach and direct to ZZZZZ2 to join the final. We were then cleared for the approach and proceeded to descend to 2;300 feet via VNAV before hitting approach mode. Since ZZZ had wanted us at 300 knots we were in manual speeds. We descended below 10;000 feet at 300 knots and noticed it at about 9;300 feet. We leveled off to slow to 250 knots by 9;100 feet and continued as normal. It was a simple and common error caused by task saturation and typical ZZZ switching approaches 3 times and arrivals twice. ATC did not say anything.This is a common issue with ZZZ but also something we should have seen. We were more careful to monitor throughout the rest of the trip. This is also an issue of COVID and not flying much. No pilot is flying the amount that we used to. Especially Captains and First Officers on reserve. That is not an excuse; but an observation. ZZZ was busy like it used to be and none of us have been used to that since before the pandemic.We will be more careful; and I will more closely monitor events as well as prevent task saturation so this doesn't happen again.




Synopsis: First Officer reported the flight exceeded the 10;000 foot FAR speed restriction. Task saturation and time off during COVID-19 were cited as contributing factors.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Line; Fittings; & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ; noticed RH fuel indication had dropped to 300lbs lower than the LH fuel indicator. No action taken in the air as I was on the ILS approach and total fuel was not low.Upon landing and parking; I noticed a substantial fuel leak and local airport operations and fire department were notified due to the size of the spill. The spill was contained and the aircraft grounded until a replacement part could be installed. Initially became aware of the fuel problem in flight on approach into ZZZ. The cause of the fuel problem was identified on the ground after shut down.  After conferring with ZZZ1 maintenance; it was determined that a quick drain plug had come loose and fell out of its place during flight.




Synopsis: SA-227 Captain reported a fuel imbalance during flight led to discovery of a fuel leak after landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During ETOPS Check
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The B757-200 ETOPS Check; page five; instructs the Mechanic to check the APU for leaks with the APU running. Then it instructs the Mechanic to check the Oil Quantity with the APU 'On' or 'Off'. This is contradicting and confusing. It is unclear whether the intent of the paperwork is to run the APU. Suggest either the APU is checked while running; or 'Off'. If it is mandatory for the APU to be checked while running; then some form of dispensation is required when the APU is MEL'd. If it is optional to run the APU for the ETOPS Check then the reference to 'running' the APU should be struck.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic notes the B757-200 ETOPS Check is contradicting and confusing when instructing a Mechanic to check the APU Oil Quantity with the APU 'On' or 'Off'; especially if the APU is MEL'd.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing; MEL; Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I deferred a defect for the VHF Comm broken knobs on the observer audio panel for Aircraft X. I used MEL 23-XX-XX-XX. I incorrectly interpreted this MEL for the observer audio panel when the MEL states that 2 Communications Systems (VHF) are installed. So the assumption is that the observer audio panel is excluded from this and it only applies to the Captain and First Officer. The Aircraft had accomplished one flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1. I had discovered the error a few hours after. The MEL is confusing for my level of experience; and suggest that this MEL be reviewed and changes made to it.


Second narrative: During the deferral process; I was working with [Name] to sign off the discrepancy using an MEL for the audio control panel for the observer side. When talking with [Name]; he said he had deferred the item already in TRAX and called to give me the information and walk me through the sign off. I went with the MEL number that he gave me. After I finished the MEL with him I finished closing he work order on Aircraft X to get it ready for the flight. I did not double check the MEL number he gave me and later he called me to tell me he gave me the wrong MEL number. I fixed it on the paperwork that I had.  I will need to make sure I double check any MEL Maintenance Control gives me to make sure it is the correct one and they we all agree.


Synopsis: Technician reported applying the wrong MEL and the aircraft flew in service.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the preflight inspection of our B757; and while passengers were loading; I noted that the fuel truck to aircraft grounding wire clamp was clamping the grounding wire to the aircraft grounding point; but was not attached to the grounding wire. The clamp had become disconnected from the grounding wire; so the fuel truck operator had simply clamped the plastic sheathed wire to the aircraft grounding point.Obviously; plastic is not an acceptable conductor for aircraft grounding. From my understanding of electricity and aircraft fueling; the reason we ground the aircraft to the fuel truck is to prevent potential voltage from building up during the flow of fuel into the aircraft (think static electricity). Thus; failure to ground the aircraft to the fuel truck could result in voltage build-up; then a spark; which could in turn; cause an explosion with fatal consequences. I immediately advised the fueler to stop fueling the aircraft and showed him the problem. He stated that he had found the clamp was disconnected when he got on shift; but did not know that the grounding wire was encased in a plastic. He thought that some trucks had two grounding wires; but he didn't know where the second one was. I asked him to get another fuel truck. He later advised me that he had found the second grounding wire (mounted at the fuel trunk's front bumper) and he had used that one instead. It appears that basic fueling safety procedures are either not being explained to some fueling personnel; or have been forgotten. I strongly suggest we revisit this subject with our contractors; and emphasize the importance of proper grounding to our pilots as well--our B757 was certainly not the first aircraft he had fueled that evening and it likely that more than a few pilots had failed to see this risk during their preflight inspections as well.




Synopsis: A B757 First Officer discovered a fuel truck plastic coated grounding wire; without a grounding clip attached to the aircraft ground point during fueling; but not properly grounding because plastic will conduct static electricity.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, 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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for the ILS XXR into ZZZ. ZZZ was running simultaneous approaches to XXL as well at the time. We were established on the middle of the localizer for XXR inbound when an OAL I assume was supposed to be on XXL came over onto our course; and caused us to get an RA. We had to descend roughly 300-700 feet per the RA guidance to avoid the conflict.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported taking evasive action to avoid another aircraft while on approach to landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MTO.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-38 Tomahawk
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G MTO
ATC / advisory: CTAF MTO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I changed my flight plan just before departing ZZZ and failed to rebrief and thus did not have NOTAMS for my new destination airport. On approach; I listened to ATIS and made appropriate radio calls on CTAF. I was nervous about landing via a right pattern - having very little practice at it while a student - but successfully made right turns from downwind to base and base to final. On final I noticed an X just before the runway but since it wasn't lit; I assumed it did not apply. As a result of all these things; I landed on a closed runway. Maintenance helped me exit and taxi to the active runway so that I could depart. I spoke to the FAA and compliance action was taken.




Synopsis: PA-38 Pilot reported landing on a closed runway.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While briefing our arrival into PHX; I discussed ATC potentially assigning one of the standard taxi routes after landing. When I tried to find the textual description of the 'Standard Taxi Routes;' they were not on my Jepp app or in Mymobile365. I briefed my understanding of what the route would be. We landed; and ATC assigned us to 'Taxi via the' Standard Taxi route. We had no issues. After the flight; I contacted the EFB (Electronic Flightbook) Team to let them know the charts were missing. They forwarded the information to a couple different people; and the gist of the story I got is that there is only one airline with an LOA (Letter of Agreement) for Standard Taxi Routes. This is why we don't have the charts. ATC is not supposed to assign us standard taxi routes; but they do; and most pilots aren't aware that we aren't supposed to get them. I think there is a disconnect between the pilot group who isn't aware that we are not supposed to be assigned the standard taxi routes and the EFB Group/ATC Group who know we aren't supposed to receive them; but aren't telling the pilots. There should be a bulletin or something issued to advise pilots of how to respond to standard taxi route instructions given in PHX.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the Tower issued them a 'Standard Taxi Route' which was not available in their Jepp Charts or EFB.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing EWR we were assigned 6000. I pointed to ALT window and verified 6000. I was PF. As I approached 5700 I noticed throttles not coming back and FD still indicating a climb. I pulled throttles back; overshot 6000 and leveled at 6200. We noticed the altitude window read 7000. NFP called to verify altitude. We were then cleared to 7000.  No problems with ALT window. Then we were cleared to 7000 and I verified 7000. Then window changed to 8000 on its own. We wrote the aircraft up.


Second narrative: The altitude window worked correctly the rest of the flight.


Synopsis: A B767 flight crew climbing out of EWR reported two instances of the altitude alert window setting advancing 1000 feet above that previously set per their clearance as they approached their cleared altitude. Operation returned to normal after the two events. They wrote up the anomaly.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CRQ.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D CRQ
ATC / advisory: Tower CRQ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The tower air conditioning unit broke and the temperature in the tower was 99 degrees F matching the outside air temperature. This was incredibly distracting and unsafe to be working conditions. On top of that there were 3 additional tech-ops employees in the tower cab trying to fix the air conditioning unit and two managers in the tower to supervise them. 5 extra people in the tower cab on top of the controllers in the cab created a huge distraction and exceeding the capacity in the cab. I just took the position and was briefed we were on Runway 24. Aircraft X checked in ready for departure. I cleared Aircraft X for an immediate departure from runway 24 and issued jet traffic on a 4 mile final (Aircraft Y). When I did not see any aircraft moving towards the Runway 24; I told Aircraft X to cancel takeoff clearance and to hold short of Runway 24. The pilot replied they were already on Runway 06. I told him to exit the runway and to contact ground. Aircraft Y was able to land with no incident.I told the manager that we should be ATC zero with these working conditions. I was wearing ice packs to stay cool enough on position. Limiting distractions needs to be a priority and could have been the cause of this potential midair.




Synopsis: CRQ Tower Controller reported an aircraft they cleared for takeoff was at the opposite end of the runway then they thought it was with traffic opposite direction on short final.