elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I requested PPE; a face mask; from operating manager on duty. Immediately he asked;'What for?'  I explained I would like a face mask during the COVID-19 pandemic while working over 15+ aircraft for the day.  He then asked me 'what AMM task are you doing that requires a face mask?'  I stated again; that I would like a face mask regarding my health and safety since I will be aboard so many aircraft. He then told me he needed to make phone call.  That phone call ended and he made another phone call regarding my request.  Once the second phone call was over he reluctantly gave me a mask from a stack of at best; 20 face masks.  We do not have an adequate amount of PPE face masks during this COVID-19 pandemic and when requested PPE we are challenged.Provide adequate PPE for all mechanics and do not challenge the technicians when requested. There are no masks readily available for us.  We are not being supplied PPE during COVID-19 pandemic.




Synopsis: Technician reported a Supervisor made two calls before reluctantly providing him with a mask. Technician stated they are not adequately being supplied with PPE equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I've noticed a trend the last few months of being dispatched with minimum fuel loads.  This previous X policy disappeared but a recent conversation with a Dispatcher confirmed it's back. Calling Dispatch for 'additional fuel' to meet safety margins has been rare the past few years; but it looks as though the need has returned.  According to the Dispatcher I spoke with today; when asked if they (dispatchers) are being pressured to Dispatch with minimum release fuel; his response was; '...well; they don't pressure us; but they do mention it a lot 'cause we're losing money.' Perhaps an email for those new captains who have yet to work under such policies might be appropriate. Cause - Cost cutting pressure from management.Suggestions - Return to policies based on safety; not earnings.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a recent trend of being dispatched with minimum fuel loads.
Date: 201409
Location: TLH.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TLH
Aircraft component: Taxiing Light
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: GROUND CONTROL TAXIING WITH PROGRESSIVE TAXIING TO HOLDING LINE AT 36. DID RUN UP AND TAXI LIGHTS WENT OUT. NOTIFIED TOWER TO TAXI BACK TO FBO AND CANCEL FLIGHT PLAN. GROUND CONTROLLER WAS DIRECTING ME ON A TAXI WAY WHICH CONTAINED A RESTRICTED PYLON WHICH WAS UNLIT WHICH THE PROP STRUCK. GROUND OPERATIONS TOWED AIRCRAFT BACK TO FBO.


Second narrative: ...propeller received substantial damage.


Synopsis: When the C-172's taxi lights failed during runup the pilot requested progressive taxi back to the FBO. While enroute the propeller struck an unlit pylon while on a taxiway as directed by the Controller. The aircraft was towed back to the FBO.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The two aircraft were both inbound to the same airport from over the same VORTAC. The A320 was in front and faster than the CRJ-200. I descended both aircraft and ended up with 4.79 miles and 700 FT between them according to the printout. In the FAA they used to round up .2ths of a mile and they would look for any target jumps when there was an 'event.' Now it seems like they just take whatever information that the computer says that two aircraft printed with less than standard separation. Did the equipment get better in reporting events? I think there might have been a target jump involved in this event but I am not sure. Around the VORTAC target jumps have always been a reality. Of course for a while over 80% standard separation was a Proximity Event and was not considered an operational event. I guess that also has changed and now it seems like the FAA wants to have as many documented 'events' as possible on the books.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller experienced a reported loss of separation; the reporter indicated computer detected error measurements within tenths of a mile are not discernible to controllers at the operational positions.
Date: 201311
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; above 100 knots; the L ENG PRV EICAS message illuminated with an L ENG BLEED light and status message. Followed QRH procedures and turned off the L ENG Bleed. Called Dispatch and Maintenance control and agreed to continue to our destination. Approximately two hours into the flight at FL340 we got the R ENG HPSOV EICAS message with associated status message. Right pneumatic duct pressure remained stable and normal at 39 PSI. The QRH directed to turn off the R ENG bleed air switch. The Captain elected to leave it on; avoiding depressurization. We began a precautionary descent and cranked the APU. We also began a divert to the closest airport with facilities. After again talking to Dispatch and Maintenance the Captain elected to divert to return to our departure airport due to facilities and 767 maintenance availability. We flew the return leg at FL240 with no pressurization problem. On descent; the Captain elected to shut off the right bleed in accordance with the QRH. The APU was then used for pneumatics. We landed uneventfully below max landing weight.




Synopsis: A B767-300ER flight crew opted to return to their departure airport for maintenance when both the R ENG HPSOV (pneumatic High Pressure Shut Off Valve) and the L ENG PRV (pneumatic Pressure Regulating Valve) EICAS warnings illuminated.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Descent
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in our final descent phase I noticed that the pitch trim indication had amber dashes. I asked for my FO (First Officer) to look in the QRH and we were unable to locate any procedure. The aircraft was controlling normally. I initially contacted the station and asked for a phone patch to operations (we are too far north for ARINC) they said 'they couldn't do that; they could give me a cell phone when we landed.'ATC tried to get me a phone patch to Maintenance Control but they weren't able to make it work. I exercised my emergency authority since I wasn't able to reach anyone except VIA ACARS; briefed the crew and we landed the aircraft and brought it to the gate. I came to the back and briefed the passengers and thanked them for their patience and understanding.Being unable to communicate with Maintenance Control left me with limited options and [Requesting Priority Handling] since there was no way or no one knew how to get me in contact or a phone patch to operations. This morning I spoke to the [Supervisor] and he informed me Maintenance told him this was a common issue with the pitch trim indication. If I could have spoken to someone who knew this I would have not needed to request priority handling] most likely. I took the most conservative route.Reference to this should be in the QRH. An alternate means to communicate with Maintenance Control north of ARINC.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported that the pitch trim indicator showed all dashes; causing him to request priority handling and make a precautionary landing.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This event consisted of two rejected takeoffs. Each reject was for no airspeed on the Captain's side. The aircraft was well below landing gross weight in both cases. The takeoff was rejected at 80 KIAS the first time; and initiated at 80 KIAS the second time however; the aircraft was closer to 95 KIAS when the reject was in place. Both cases were non-events in my opinion due to capturing the problem early on in the takeoff; and because the airplane was at such a light weight. The rejections were both procedurally correct. At no time did I see anything that would suggest that we were not following standard procedures. The second rejected takeoff could have been avoided if maintenance had thoroughly followed the pilots' suggestions that they thoroughly check the pitot tube for obstructions; however; this was not done. The Captain's airspeed indicator was changed out and some mention of the Central Air Data Computer as well; but only minimum effort was put in to checking the pitot tube. Subsequently; after minimum crew rest we went back out to fly the same airplane. We were told the pitot tube was obstructed. I would highly suggest that pitot covers be installed when the airplane is going to be sitting for any length of time.




Synopsis: B757-200 pilot reported rejecting two successive takeoff attempts when the Captain's airspeed failed to register because of pitot blockage.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 2O1.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Observer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The rotating beacon light at Gansner Field; Quincy; CA; is completely non-operational at night; for about 3 months now. The green light portion has been non-operational for 2 years before that (only the white portion was working). Airport personnel and several county supervisors are not treating this issue with any concern or haste; and I feel they do not know the extent of the hazard created by not maintaining the beacon properly. The nearest airports to Gansner field are in Beckworth; CA; Chester; CA; or Susanville; CA; with a very large area of unlit national forest and the northern Sierra Nevada mountains around the airport. There are not many lit ground references in the area for orientation or navigation. The airport is a vital facility which was just proven by its use as a fire fighting helibase twice in the last 2 months (while there was no operational beacon light) for the local forest fires. In contacting the airport maintenance man; I was told the tower is too rickety to climb safely. In contacting the airport management; I was told they don't have funds for tower structure repairs. In contacting the county supervisors; I was told I could attend the board meeting to bring the matter to the board's attention. I told them I'd like to attend to hear how quickly they have repaired the beacon light and tower. In other words; I am at wit's end and have turned to this forum. I hope you can get some results to get the rotating beacon operational again.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the Gansner Field (2O1) rotating beacon is non-operational at night.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hand flying practice ILS approach into ZZZ. Was vectored to intercept final approach course and overshot localizer intercept. Airport was in sight and we were in an unlimited visibility situation. Radar Controller got a low altitude alert but our TCAS GPWS did not alert us. Hills exist east of the Runway XXR ILS and we were well above them. Cancelled IFR; intercepted localizer and landed normally.




Synopsis: Premier 1 pilot reported overshooting the localizer on an ILS approach; resulting in a low altitude alert from ATC.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working the Mulford/Grove combined sector for the Oakland final on an odd configuration. No aircraft could land on our long runway; Runway 30; and we were forced to land air carriers on our shorter runways; runways 28 left and right. An A320 was cleared for the RNAV Runway 28L approach into OAK; about 7 miles from JUPAP; told to cross JUPAP at or above 3;700 as published. About a mile prior to JUPAP the A320 started a right turn about 10-20 degrees right of course but continued to descend as if on the profile. I told the A320 he appeared right of course and to say intentions. The A320 indicated he was turning back to course; I observed him descend below the MVA and still heading right of course not correcting. I issued a Low Altitude Alert; climbed the A320 to the MVA and then resequenced him for the ILS Runway 28R. The A320 landed without incident. I was later informed that a pilot deviation was filed against the pilot; which I do not think is necessary. Also to note is that I believe this was during a period where we had NOTAMs out for GPS unreliable; but I cannot confirm because accurate records are not kept for when NOTAMs are canceled. I do not have a fix recommendation as I still do not know why the error occurred.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reports an A320 crew descending early and deviating from the RNAV (GPS) Y Runway 28L course during approach to OAK. The crew is queried then issued a low altitude alert and the approach is continued to landing. A NOTAM for GPS unreliable may have been in effect at the time of the incident.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Started initial takeoff roll on RWY XX at ZZZ. At low speed (<30 knts. estimated) nose gear suddenly collapsed. Secured the aircraft. Pilot was sole [person] on board. No injuries.




Synopsis: Bonanza pilot reported nose gear failure on takeoff roll.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching to land on a relatively short runway; the flying pilot intending to land on the end of the runway; inadvertently landed about 8 feet short of the end of the runway hitting a green threshold light. The resulting debris from the shattered light caused the runway to be closed for about 8 minutes.


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


Synopsis: G IV First Officer reports the flying Captain landing short of the runway end and hitting a threshold light; while planning to land at the very beginning of the runway.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While taxiing into the hangar area on Taxiway B I came close to a helicopter approaching to land. He was approaching from my right and the landing spot was also to my right adjacent to the taxiway. I did not see him immediately as my view to my upper right is blocked by the sun-shield on my canopy. When I first saw him he was at my 2 o'clock at a low altitude as he was executing a go-around. I stopped immediately until he had passed in front of me. Then I proceeded and turned right two hangar rows passed the conflict point and as I exited that hangar row headed for my hangar row; I saw him making another approach in front of me. I immediately stopped to let him land. He saw me and hovered for a moment to make sure I was going to stay stopped. The normal procedure at this airport is: I am cleared to the ramp by the Tower and told to monitor the ground frequency which I was doing. The helicopters are cleared to land by the Tower at their own risk. If he is cleared to land after I switch from the Tower frequency to Ground; I will not hear that transmission. That was the case here; I assume; as I never heard him cleared to land. Since we are on different frequencies it makes for potentially dangerous situation. I have talked to the Tower about this previously but got no response.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported a conflict with a helicopter while taxiing in the ramp area at FFZ airport.