elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
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
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The passengers were directed to sit in the first 10 rows thereby making social distancing impossible on a mostly empty flight. The Operations Agent could have worked the weight and balance more carefully and allowed the passengers to spread out evenly to provide appropriate social distance.Operations Agents need to be directed to distribute bags and cargo to allow social distancing. Passengers [were] forced into close contact by weight and balance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that due to weight and balance needs; the Operations Agent directed passengers on a nearly empty flight to sit close together; violating social distancing requirements. The Captain suggested that weight and balance be reworked to allow appropriate spacing between passengers.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not 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; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through approximately 13;000 FT we experienced several quick right engine compressor stalls. After disconnecting the autothrottles and retarding the power on the right engine; the compressor stalls seemed to subside.We immediately declared an emergency with ATC; completed QRH and normal checklists; then returned to our departure airport. After landing; CFR verified the right engine was secured and we taxied to the gate. Upon inspection of the right engine; we discovered that the right engine inlet nose bullet had sheared off and was resting in the cowling against the inlet guide vanes.




Synopsis: An MD-82 flight crew declared and emergency and returned to their departure airport when they experienced compressor stalls from the right engine during their climb out. Inspection after landing revealed the engine's nose bullet had sheared off and had remained in the cowling inlet.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Hazmat part was sent to Hazmat/international area to be shipped to ZZZZ. Upon inspection of the part; it was initially determined that FAA form 8130-3 was missing from the part to be shipped. I was told by a Supervisor that the part is an expendable item. However; because of the part sold to [Air Carrier A] from [Air Carrier B]; an [Air Carrier B] version of 8480A/B is with the part where it states return to service with [form] 8130-3. Upon me asking for [form] 8130-3 to process the HAZMAT portion through HAZRAPS (Final Authority for Hazmat shipments); no [form] 8130-3 could be found. I was then given a directive to ship the part regardless of the [form] 8130-3. Upon further examination from QA/QI; it was also determined; the part is damaged and non-serviceable (although the form states Serviceable TAG). This was told to management; and I was still expected to ship a damaged part to be used on one of [Air Carrier A's] aircraft. I did not ship the part regardless of the directive given to me. Lives can and are at stake when procedures are not followed. I find myself in a process of possible disciplinary action; due to me not following Managements' direction and for doing my job as prescribed per my training; [Procedures Manual] and HAZMAT training. Not to mention the fact; when international parts are to be shipped; appropriate paperwork needs to accompany parts that need [form] 8130-3 and 8480A/B. It was totally unclear the need for [form] 8130-3 or lack thereof. Management did not follow their own procedures. They expect myself and others to violate said procedures up to and including Federal; State; Local and International Laws.When there is a question of a HAZMAT part and/or serviceability of a part; it is better to be very cautious and keep the flying public safe for travel. All procedures need to be followed per [Procedures Manual]; Federal; State; Local and International Laws.




Synopsis: Airline Maintenance Technician reported refusing to ship Hazmat aircraft parts due to procedural violations.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X auto-popped on my radar scope with no coordination or a handoff. There was no auto-flash either. I contacted Cleveland Center's Rochester sector and inquired about the aircraft and they had no idea who the aircraft was. I requested communication with the aircraft and after about 10 seconds; the aircraft checked on. Be more diligent on Mode C intruders if there are any.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reports of an aircraft that auto-pops onto his scope. Calls another sector to see who the aircraft is and they do not know. Aircraft calls Controller a few seconds later.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aisle chair passenger required additional assistance and time while boarding in order to appropriately accommodate his Lithium battery wheels. This process caused a minor departure delay. Station personnel handled this situation perfectly.There appears to be someone in management harboring a negative bias against my continued employment; so all reports will be filed moving forward.




Synopsis: ERJ 175 Flight Attendant reported Lithium powered mobility device required longer than normal to correctly handle and store device. The additional handling time resulted in a minor delay.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing out we were given a taxi clearance to Runway XXR intersection XX [taxiway]. The FO and I both heard a non standard taxi route 'XXR XX; A; XXX' and the FO read it back and wrote it down. My experience at ZZZ gave me the impression this was a non standard route. Due to the non standard nature of our airports at this time; it wasn't out of the ordinary to get alternate taxi routes. I turned left on XXX [taxiway] and the Controller then issued a right turn ZYZ [taxiway] and a left turn Z [taxiway] to continue to XXX then Y [taxiway].I have flown very little in the past 45 days and heard an incorrect taxi clearance. I also didn't question the 'odd' taxi instructions we copied because of getting similar 'unfamiliar' taxi instructions the past  3 months at ZZZ. The FO was ZZZ1 based and was also relying on my judgment for this taxi route. The busy frequency made the instructions unclear and we were not corrected when the FO read back the incorrect taxi instructions.I should have queried the Controller for clarification when I was given a 'non-standard' taxi route.


Second narrative: Captain and First Officer misheard taxi call. We were departing and Ground told us to take a right on A [taxiway]; then follow company traffic at XXX; then left on XXY to Z. We both heard Right on A; left at XXX; then right on Z. That's what I read back and ATC didn't correct us. Once on Z; ATC told us to take a right to follow company traffic. No issues were noted and there were no threats. We corrected the mistake as soon as ATC notified us of the error.Cause - Busy airport. We misheard the call; read back what we heard and weren't corrected at the time by ATC.Suggestions - Clear; concise communications and if there's a mistake in the read back; ATC should identify it.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a taxiway incursion after receiving a non-standard taxi instruction.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared to land on [Runway] 30L left and; while in the rollout; the Captain noticed an aircraft at A9 crossing the runway.  We were never informed of LASHO but the aircraft behind us was informed of a LASHO for them.


Second narrative: I was the Pilot Flying [PF] flying a visual approach to 30L at MSP.  We received radar vectors to final and were stabilized and configured at 1000'AGL.  Around 500' AGL; I heard Tower give the other carrier behind me a LAHSO clearance to 'Land on runway 30L and hold short of taxiway A9; traffic to cross down field.'  At approximately 200'; I heard Tower clear another carrier to cross runway 30L; traffic would land and hold short of A9.  I was in the flare (below 50') when the other carrier crossed in front of me way down field.  I landed normally; applied normal braking and cleared the runway at taxiway C and went to the gate uneventfully.  We were never a conflict with the crossing aircraft and I think it was crossing at the far end of the runway after landing on Runway 35.  However; we're not allowed to participate in LAHSO clearances; so why did the Tower cross an aircraft in front of me while I was landing?  It seemed he just gave the LAHSO clearance to the aircraft behind me; but left me out of the loop because our Company doesn't participate in LAHSO.  It's kind of disconcerting to see an aircraft in front of you while you're in the flare; even when he's way down the runway.  We need to either participate in LAHSO or get a clear runway to land upon; not a mix of the two.  There's potential for a late go-around or overly aggressive braking and a blown tire when the landing aircraft isn't given the full ATC picture.  Besides; landing data is based on the whole runway; not holding short of A9.


Synopsis: Pilots report after landing at MSP they observe an aircraft crossing the runway.  Pilot was never advised to hold short (LAHSO); but aircraft landing behind them was.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Other Other
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The pilot and crew approached the Solar Generating Station located south of Las Vegas; NV. Pilot noted the NOTAMs issued about the facility. The light generated from the station was blinding to both pilot and crew. The bright light was almost blinding from a distance of 20 plus miles. This facility generates three bright lights on a 360 degree arc around the facilities. The light from the facility was very similar to that seen when looking at a welder. One crew member complained they only looked at it briefly and felt it hurt their eyes in a manner similar to that caused by snow blindness. All crew-members were wearing sunglasses which did not appear to reduce the glare.The pilot and crew-members agree with language in the NOTAMs that this facility poses hazards to aviation and passengers. On the previous day the same pilot and crew flew a similar mission near the Solar Generating Station near Coalinga; CA. The generating station there is smaller and the reflectors are one directional which reflect the bright light toward the north. It does not appear to be as hazardous because of the mono directional characteristic and it is not on any obvious approach paths to major airports.

Callback: The effect on human vision was reported to be painful and disabling.



Synopsis: A small aircraft flight crew flew at 9;500 FT near the Solar Generating Station and experienced a light similar to a welder's arc; which reflected from the tower itself was blinding 360 degrees for twenty miles.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We were being pushed back from the gate at ZZZ. The push back process was proceeding normally. The tug driver was following all standard procedures and was operating the tug with great care. The tug started to turn the aircraft to point the tail to the south. The tug was approximately five degrees into the turn when there was a loud bang followed by the airplane detaching from the tug. The tug driver told me to set brakes and I gently applied brakes until the plane came to a gentle stop. I then set the parking brake. The tug driver then told me that the airplane came off of the tow bar and the front wheel sustained damage. I informed Dispatch and Maintenance of the situation.




Synopsis: CRJ 900 Captain reported tow bar became detached from aircraft on push back resulting in damage to the front wheel.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
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 DAL
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a visual approach to Runway 31L. It was a very clear night and we were cleared early for the visual; so I elected to fly a close-in base for landing. As I was about to turn final; we received a 'Caution; Obstacle' Alert. I leveled off on my turn to final; and then resumed the approach to an uneventful landing. Moments later; I remembered that even though we had unlimited visibility; I was required by procedure to execute a go-around in that situation; a realization I did not make during the confusion of the event.It was once very common to hand fly a tight approach to the northwest runways in DAL; but I will always invest the extra minute or two to stay on a magenta line in the future. Personally; this event itself will serve as very effective mnemonic aid for complying with go-around policy for GPWS Cautions.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported continuing the approach contrary to procedure after receiving a GPWS obstacle alert on a night visual approach to DAL.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Flight & Navigation Systems
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll at 50 knots STAB TRIM and MAC TRIM master caution warnings illuminated. Began the rejected takeoff procedure. At reduction of thrust levers CONFIG SPOILERS master warning illuminated. Continued reject without further incident. Taxied clear of runway ran the checklist. Taxied to deice pad and contacted dispatch and maintenance. After reviewing what happened I feel a reject may not have been necessary. However; at the time (and the low speed) I chose to reject as a stab trim malfunction I felt could have been a serious problem.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reports rejecting a takeoff at 50 knots when STAB TRIM and MAC TRIM master caution warnings illuminate.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I conducted an instrument training flight with my student in a Piper Cherokee. I noticed the cloud layers were relatively low and decided to file an IFR flight plan for our flight. We did two practice approaches and a GPS hold. The flight was conducted without incident until the last approach into ZZZ on the RNAV (GPS) ZZ IAP. We had been cleared to switch from ZZZ Approach to the ZZZ Tower frequency. We checked in with ZZZ Tower and were told to continue on the approach. Several minutes later; after we had passed the final approach fix; ZZZZZ; a Skyhawk turned onto final from our right side cutting right in front of us with very little space between our aircraft and the Skyhawk. I immediately notified the Tower. They apologized but did not give us any instruction to separate the Skyhawk from our aircraft. I asked again 'what would you like us to do?' The Tower gave instructions to a different Skyhawk which was not the aircraft that had cut us off. I made a decision to break off the approach and make a left 360 to evade the Skyhawk. I notified Tower and they acknowledged. We rejoined the final approach and landed without incident.




Synopsis: PA-28 Flight Instructor reported an airborne conflict in the traffic pattern at a Tower controlled airport.