elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We are taught to accept no unnecessary risk. This report will likely not make it through the report meeting for some time; because the FAA representative is following this rule; as the FAA left the Training Center when social distancing became a directive. Flight Operations seems to be in a different world. Now; we are sending thousands of pilots out on multi-day trips with no N95 masks; no industrial disinfectant and no way to social distance on vans or in the cockpit.Hotel rooms are not in any way guaranteed to be safe. Just yesterday; there were many pilots that had to be contacted because they had been in proximity to a known positive crew member. Company is not following SAFO 20003 procedure; which [recommends] crews to take daily temperatures. Why not? No reason given; we just don't follow it. We are not providing disinfectants. Why not? Because 'Supply Chain' can't get them. What if our fuel truck couldn't get enough gas for our minimum fuel?Would we still operate? Since Crews can't social distance; they certainly need N95 masks and training on how to effectively use them; but we aren't providing the masks. We are accepting unnecessary risk and I worry very much that this is going to lead to a death; or deaths that could have been prevented by following our own internal guidance.




Synopsis: Flight crew member reported the company was sending crews out during pandemic without proper safety equipment.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Mounting
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working line maintenance and the aircraft was just in the early stages of right engine change. Mechanics were putting the new engine under wing when I informed them that we needed to check the run on torque of the barrel nuts first. We found one bad and had to change it; then I was not needed until they were close to full up with the engine. So mechanics torqued aft engine mount bolts and then moved to forward mount. I stood out by the C-duct since two mechanics were under the C-ducts to accomplish the torques.Just got complacent; normally the new bolts are always used and checked for the run on torques. Then they have the anti-seize applied along with washer; sitting there ready.The aft mount bolts were put on first and they had the washers; but two mechanics did the aft and two other mechanics did the front. Again; just got complacent after aft mount bolts installed correctly and didn't double check for washers on the front mount installation.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Inspector reported that the front engine mounts did not have washers installed.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Cessna made an initial call and after the second time I got the called right. The Cessna indicated he was 29 miles north of ZZZ; diverting to ZZZ due to possible fuel leak. I query at what altitude he was at. The Cessna responded with 10;300 MSL. At which I looked and assumed it was the VFR target around that area indicating 10;600 MSL; which is approximately 35 west of my airspace. I assumed at that point it was the Cessna and suggested he contact Center; the sector he was in. The Cessna took the frequency change. I believed I was too quick to transfer communication of the Cessna to Center as he was in their airspace according to the position he provided and what it look like a RADAR target with similar altitude and position. I believed I made an error in judgment. What I should have done was give the Cessna a squawk code; identified the airspace and ask if the Cessna needed additional assistance other than just basic VFR flight following. There after; I could have called Center to see if you would like to handle the Cessna or just leave to me to handle as he was near his diverted destination of his flight.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller self critiqued the handling of an aircraft with fuel issues requesting VFR following; the reported acknowledging the aircraft should have been identified before issuing changing the aircraft to an adjacent Center.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MLE.Airport, NE
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF MLE
Second aircraft: Luscombe Model 8/Luscombe 50
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on final approach to Runway 12 at MLE; winds were calm and the preferred runway for calm winds is Runway 12. When I was about 500 ft above ground; a plane called on the Unicom that he was taking off on Runway 30 (opposite end of my landing runway). I called him on the radio and cautioned him about our position; and impending landing. He did not respond. I flared and on my rollout; I noticed he had begun his takeoff roll. I called again; but again; no response. I had turned on my landing light far out on final; which I usually do. I flashed the landing light several times; hoping they would see us.I had no choice but to continue my landing rollout; and was ready to exit the runway onto the grass if the other aircraft did not stop. Just before I reached a taxiway to exit the runway; the other aircraft had begun to slow down. He stopped on the runway as I was exiting onto the taxiway.No collision; no damage; but a little scary. Notwithstanding the fact that my radio communications were not heard by this other pilot; he should have checked the runway visually for any other traffic; which he did not.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot on landing roll reported a ground conflict with opposite direction traffic on the takeoff roll at MLE.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the Dirty Arrival descending through 13;000 FT; we experienced severe wake turbulence 6 miles in trail and 1000 feet above a B747. We notified ATC and requested to level at 12;500 feet and slow from 280 knots to 250 knots. We did that; continued arrival and landed without event.We experienced an undesired aircraft state. I believe the B747 was very heavy and the afternoon heat; lifting action and convective activity contributed to the wake turbulence.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported encountering 'severe' wake turbulence 6 miles in trail of a B747 on the DIRTY arrival into ATL.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other PATTERN
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: The first aircraft flown by a CFI and a student a Cessna 172N was maneuvering to enter the pattern at ZZZ; and was monitoring the CTAF and watching for traffic. The other aircraft was flying at 1;200 ft. toward known reporting point at the ZZZ1 airport called [waypoint]. The Cessna was lower and to the right of the Archer; giving the Cessna the right of way. The Cessna saw and pointed behind the Archer and continue to enter the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor reported a NMAC with a low wing aircraft above them.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: JFK was on a 4 L/R operation with southwest traffic departing 31L; along with doing the WHITE/WAVEY route swap. There was a large volume of traffic off Runway 31L going to the next sector. Due to volume; they stopped traffic going to that sector. I called JFK Local Controller and verbally stopped all departures off Runway 31L. Unknown to me; JFK Tower and New York TRACON Traffic Management Unit (TMU) were discussing southwest departures off JFK and the volume/in-trail. Someone either in New York TRACON TMU or JFK Tower believed that meant that southwest bound traffic was released and started to depart Runway 31L without my approval on JFK departure RADAR position or without coordination/approval from the JFK Sector sequencer. This caused an airspace deviation into my sector. Traffic was stopped and should have NOT resumed. JFK Tower should be mandated to get release on all departure stops from the JFK area/Departure Controller. Even if there is a fix stop by TMU. The reason is that if there is either a stop from the Departure Controller or the TMU; the sector may use that airspace for other reasons that the Tower or TMU are not aware of. The Tower or TMU just releasing traffic into a sector without the sectors knowledge is very dangerous.




Synopsis: N90 Controller expressed concern regarding the release procedures used for JFK Tower and the interaction of the TMU vs. the departure sectors.
Date: 201402
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working a desk during bad weather today; which included a line of thunderstorms and low visibility in the northeast. Many flights were dispatched using an exemption. With the current work load it is very difficult to maintain operational control when reroutes; holds; amended TAFs; phone calls;management requests to contact crews and diversions start coming in. Six hours of my day felt helpless as I tried to keep up with everything and maintain operational control as I pulled in help from fellow dispatchers.Several times I advised management that I was getting behind but nothing ever happened. Thankfully; another Dispatcher who had VFR weather on his flights helped divide some of my upcoming flights to give me time to work reroutes; holds; amendments and diversions. I then stayed an hour after my shift in overtime to amend alternates that had gone down during the chaos.Having four major airports on one desk could be a big part of it. However; any desk that has 60 flights on it will struggle during a weather challenging day. There isn't a way to stay up on everything unless only one of those major cities goes down or on a VFR day. There wasn't anyone to help or give guidance when everything started to fall apart because so many others near me were in the same situation. With several floater shifts it may be a good idea to open up more desks or at least make sure someone is brought in during weather events. Management knew the situation; but didn't free up my work load except to try and read my desk communication and respond; not knowing that another Dispatcher had taken the problem on because I asked them directly for help. Better communication between the dispatcher and management to see what is needed exactly would be helpful.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher working described being overloaded because of bad weather in the northeast. He was not given assistance by management even though other dispatchers were working less demanding flights in VFR conditions.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DYL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF DYL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was the PIC on an IFR flight.  No one was present in the traffic pattern when we arrived at DYL.  From the north I entered a crosswind entry to a downwind for RWY 23.  The approach to landing was standard.  I started to round out above the threshold numbers of RWY 23 when I noticed out of my right peripheral a deer running perpendicular to us; right to left.  I immediately felt us hit the deer but did not know where it struck us.  I still had directional control of the aircraft and utilizing the elevator was able to slow down the aircraft while in ground effect.  The aircraft started to slow down; I was able to achieve full aft control input until the aircraft slowed down enough to the point where the nose wheel normally would have made contact with the runway.  Yet the nose continued to drop; and the prop struck the runway.  I was able to maintain the centerline of the runway and immediately brought the mixture to 'lean' full aft position; and turned the fuel selector to 'off'.  When the aircraft came to a complete stop on the runway we immediately exited the aircraft.  That is when we noticed the deer passed behind the prop; and hit the nose gear in the middle of its body.  The deer wrapped fully around the nose gear strut; snapping the strut fully aft and up onto the belly of the aircraft.




Synopsis: Single engine aircraft pilot reports striking a deer at touchdown at DYL airport that resulted in damage to the landing gear and prop.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Work Refused; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I attempted to call N90 TRACON to approve a FRG arrival (Aircraft X) at 11;000 feet under the JFK arrivals at 12;000 feet. This is a common request. I received no answer on the line. I descended the FRG arrival to 11;000 feet and made the required point out to the adjacent TRACON sector; which was approved and began handing off. At this point I intended to try the TRACON again and slow the FRG arrival to 250 knots but fell behind because I was busy. I noticed TRACON descending the JFK arrival; Aircraft Y; from 12;000 feet. Immediately I turned Aircraft X and issued a wake turbulence advisory. The pilot said he had the traffic in sight and would rather turn in the opposite direction; which I approved and then told them to contact the TRACON controller; who didn't have the handoff yet; but I mistakenly thought did due to the conflict alert flashing. The TRACON Controller then called me and said they didn't see Aircraft X and that now it was 'radar contact.' I realize I didn't do everything right here but I also feel the TRACON controller must have seen Aircraft X at 11;000 feet since it was in handoff status. Immediately following this the TRACON Controller refused to accept the handoff on 2 JFK arrivals which I needed to vector out and delay for about 10 minutes without any heads- up.I should have gotten approval for the JFK; FRG stack; slowed the FRG arrival to 250 knots; and not changed Aircraft X's frequency until they had the handoff. If there was a 'glitch' in the system and the TRACON controller really didn't see the guy in handoff status then that needs to be fixed. Otherwise it would be disappointing to think a controller would descend a perfectly separated airplane through another and then refuse to accept handoffs on multiple international arrivals just to prove a point.




Synopsis: ZBW Center Controller reported a TRACON Controller would not take their handoffs.
Date: 202106
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Beginning taxiing from gate had to come to a stop avoid a collision with a company vehicle. Fortunately; I brief this as a threat in ORD and DEN; so I was able to stop smoothly. The disturbing part of the event was how reckless his driving was. He didn't even slow down. Instead he or she took a hard left turn towards the terminal and continued on the parallel road. Ramp frequency was too busy to make a timely report.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported stopping abruptly to avoid a collision on the ramp at DEN when a vehicle failed to give right of way to the aircraft.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Captain; and Pilot Flying on flight to MEM. The flight was normal followed by approach to landing in MEM. The weather at time of arrival was scattered clouds; light rain; and winds from 130 at 13; gusting 23. The ILS approach to 18C was selected with a landing assessment for flaps 25 and autobrakes 3 used. Airspeed additive was half the steady state plus the gust with an approach speed of ref plus 15. The approach was normal and stabilized approach criteria adhered to with a normal; zero crab; side slip crosswind landing on centerline. Autobrakes 3 with max thrust reverse were used. The landing and deceleration of the aircraft were normal and unremarkable with no direction of control difficulty. We exited the runway and upon block in the brake temperatures were in the 2 range. When the Mechanic left the aircraft to do his walk around he returned to inform us that one tire on the right landing gear truck only was 'messed up'. Upon inspection; it appeared the forward inboard tire had a large spot of missing ground down tread and appeared flat spotted. The tire had not blown and there was no damage to the aircraft. The tire was subsequently replaced.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that a post flight inspection revealed that a main gear tire had flat spots and was missing a large section of tread.