elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying RNAV Runway 27 SAN appeared to be a drone approximately 1;000 ft. below and offset to the north of our position as we turned past SAYAE. The drone was moving east. No evasive action was required. Reported to Tower and no approved drone activity was sanctioned at that time. Same as above. All drones should be equipped with transponders.

Callback: Reporter had no additional information.



Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported seeing a UAS while on final approach and reported the incident to ATC.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff we received chimes from the flight attendants. When I answered I received a very loud and frantic voice repeating this 'XXXX; XXXX; we must land immediately.' I tried to gain more information to no avail. I declared an emergency and asked for a return to the airport. When asked what the nature of the emergency was; I stated that is was unclear; however; it could be a fire type of situation. During the 180 degree turn back we received a second chime and got the same verbiage from the flight attendants. 'XXXX; XXXX; we must land immediately.' Soon thereafter I took the control of the airplane and radios and asked the First Officer to get more information from the back. We eventually found out that is was an ill passenger who was having a heart attack and CPR was being administered. I then stated to ATC what type of emergency we had and entered a downwind for the landing runway.The phrase 'XXXX' is mentioned one time in our operations manual. It is a Flight Attendant to Flight Attendant reference only. Simple English; with details; need to be used when describing a situation in the cabin of the airplane. Due to the severity of the ill passenger (heart attack; no pulse; no breathing and CPR being done) the flight attendants were under a lot of stress. They performed very well and I would like to acknowledge they probably saved this mans life! GREAT JOB! However; I feel there needs to be much more awareness of the fact that we are not privy to or trained in some of their references; acronyms etc. My perception of what was maybe a fire or other [question of airworthiness] type of situation; even though for a very short time; is very concerning due to the [lack of specificity] from the flight attendants.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger had a heart attack shortly after takeoff; an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.  Captain stated the flight attendants were utilizing unique to the flight attendant group language to describe the situation which resulted in an inaccurate assessment of the needs between the flight crew and ATC.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise; we got a HYD A Volume Low message; it was down to 15%. We monitored and continued per the checklist. We discussed the possibility of losing more fluid on the landing gear deployment and continued flight. We were scheduled to land at ZZZ (7000 ft. runway); but both agreed that if the volume dropped below 10% we would divert to ZZZ1 in order to use the 11;000 ft. plus runway. This was just in case we were to lose all the remaining fluid volume upon thrust reverser deployment and use of brakes; which would force us to use our emergency/air brakes; significantly increasing our stopping distance. When we deployed the gear the volume dropped to 8% so per our plan diverted to ZZZ1 where we landed without incident.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported main hydraulic system A had a decreasing system quantity; causing a diversion.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Maintenance was already onboard due to previous crew write ups. Maintenance was informed of additional write ups after preflight by outbound crew in person and via radio. Those items included a report of dented trailing edge flap panels aft of the main landing gear. All Items signed of by Maintenance after checks. Flight departs late. Prior to departure; the Captain related to the First Officer a conversation he just had via phone at the departure gate with the Chief Pilot. The Chief inquired as to what was going on with the broken airplane and specifically if the First Officer [me] was reporting 'bogus' and invalid write ups. Captain stated that all write ups were valid; reviewed and personally verified by him. On approach to landing; flaps remained at 2 degrees after being commanded past 2 degrees. Approach was discontinued. Aircraft to a holding fix. QRH procedures followed. Declared an emergency followed by an otherwise uneventful landing.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports flaps stuck at 2 during approach and a resulting go around to comply with QRH procedures.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon entering holding at FL180 the L ENG ANTI ICE EICAS status message illuminated; in addition to the ANTI ICE status message. As a result of the status messages; flight into icing conditions was to be avoided. At the time; the aircraft was holding right above the cloud layer; but our airport was in the midst of a snowstorm and was reporting 3/4 -SN. The filed alternate; was also reporting SN and icing conditions were expected below FL180. The crew initiated a SATCOM phone call to Dispatch to review options. Shortly thereafter; Maintenance Control was added to the patch. After quickly ascertaining there was no in flight option to address the ANTI ICE issues and a quick review of available diversion stations; it was determined that the closest option available that was free of icing conditions. Due to the fuel state of the aircraft; both the Captain and Dispatch concurred that a declaration of an emergency and an immediate diversion was required.


Second narrative: As we descended through 16;000 FT engine anti-ice was commanded on; but the left anti-ice valve failed to open. We were in icing conditions and within a minute got an EICAS for left engine icing. Requested climb back up to 18;000 FT which put us in the clear. Ran the checklist and was unable to get the anti-ice valve to open. Since the weather was 1/2 miles and heavy snow and all nearby airports had weather; we had to decide on a plan fast. Fuel on board was 22.0 at that time. Coordinated with Dispatch and Maintenance Control and decided [to divert to] the closest airport with weather; but the initial burn was to be 14.0. We had no other options; so declared an emergency and headed immediately to the other airport. Crew worked incredibly well together for a successful outcome. No further issues. We landed with 11.7 of fuel remaining. Dispatch had coordinated our arrival; divert Station Manager was there to meet us; had an international gate for us and customs standing by. Kudos to all involved.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier Dispatcher and Captain describe the events surrounding a diversion due to left engine anti-ice failure with heavy snow falling at the destination airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing on private grass strip 2;400 feet length. Loss of directional control on roll out. Excessive speed; poor braking; wet undersurface. Veered off to left of runway. Nose wheel collapse; prop strike; dent right wingtip. 3 people on board; no injuries at all.




Synopsis: Vans RV-10 pilot reported losing control during landing rollout.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp BNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After our arrival [from BNA] and the passengers had deplaned; a supervisor approached me asking about 'our dent'. I was unaware of any dent; so I asked her which one she was referring to since there were a couple noted the maintenance index. In an attempt to be coy; she responded if I'm unaware a dent; then there must not be one. I halted that conversation and stated that if there's a dent discovered we need to look into it.That was when she handed me a printed email; from BNA operations earlier that morning. The email stated a dent was discovered aft of the L1 door; where the jet-bridge meets the aircraft. Upon reviewing this email with the pictures showing the location of the dent; we were able to see it ourselves. The dent was minor; and required stooping down to the floor of the jet-bridge to even see it at the correct angle. The dent was hard to see even when trying to find it and would not have been noticed on a normal walk around.I immediately noticed the dent was not referenced in the logbook and so a call to maintenance was immediately placed. At the time; maintenance control could not locate any reference to the dent and contract technicians were called to inspect the dent. During which time; maintenance control did in fact find the dent had been logged some time ago. What I found most troubling in this situation was that BNA operations discovered this dent before we arrived at the aircraft Sunday morning and made no mention of it to us; or anyone else at [our airline]for that matter. Furthermore; they sent an email; almost an hour before our departure to alert the next station of the discrepancy; but yet made no effort to notify the flight crew or anyone else at [the airline].I feel this is a huge breach in safety standards and needs to be addressed. If BNA operations had notified the flight crew; or anyone at [the airline] before our departure instead of the operations at the next station; this event would have never taken place.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported not being aware of a dent on the aircraft; which was discovered by ground crew at the departure airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon entering right traffic for Runway XX due to proximity of trees on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern; I inadvertently stayed above the standard traffic pattern and approach altitudes. Upon base to final turn; my altitude remained higher than stable approach required. In an attempt to descend quickly; I deployed the speed brake to increase rate of descent on short final which steepened the descent but also increased the airspeed. Both sink rate and forward airspeed remained higher than required for stabilized approach resulting in hard landing involving both main gear and nose gear contacting the runway; and subsequent bounce. On second contact with the runway; the nose gear collapsed and aircraft slid down runway center. Ground observer later commented that after the initial bounce; the nose gear was turned perpendicular to direction of flight and created rapid oscillation upon second contact which likely over-stressed the nose gear attach point to the point of failure. The nose gear wedged under the forward fuselage at an angle and created a strong left-turning force. I attempted to assert directional control through differential braking but could not fully overcome the turning force. Aircraft departed runway approximately 1;000 feet from initial contact to the left; slid down embankment for approximately 100 feet and came to rest in the grass area. Occupant was evacuated immediately without injury; and no fuel and oil was spilled in the environment. Aircraft suffered moderate damage to the nose cone; left canard tip; and left winglet bottom in addition to the nose gear that was sheared off. The incident was preventable had I flew the standard traffic pattern; with standard approach to landing airspeed without the distractions from nearby trees and the psychological factor of the runway being shorter than I am used to but well within the demonstrated capability of both my previous flights in type and the aircraft performance. Additional practice and proficiency flights in type would also have likely contributed to prevention by increased confidence and experience in the type flown.




Synopsis: Experimental aircraft pilot reported unstabilized approach resulted in a hard landing resulting in aircraft damage and runway excursion.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Coming in to land [at] ZZZ. I was the PF and called for flaps full; bird off set runway track. I was turning base to final to land at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet. During the checklist reading as I was coming to my inside scan at the same time the Captain read auto thrust I looked down and noticed it was at thrust idle. I then pushed the thrust levers forward to TOGA and lowered the nose as the aural warning said 'speed'. The airplane slowed to around 125 knots; but quickly recovered to normal speed. Continued the approach without incident. Upon debrief on the ground at the gate the captain said that he accidentally turned his FD off and then back on which causes the airplane to go into thrust idle; when only one FD is on. Preventative measure could have been trying to configure earlier so as to not task-saturate the pilot monitoring.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported getting slow on approach when thrust levers were driven to idle by aircraft system logic.
Date: 202201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Pushback
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback it was realized that we have not received a final dangerous goods report. After pushback; I requested report using miscellaneous DG. We received the report without further issue.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported final Dangerous Goods Report missing during gate pushback. After pushback completed flight crew requested and received the missing document and departed without further issues.
Date: 201505
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a hold at FL380. We reduced airspeed to hold speed per FMS and Takeoff and Landing Data. Both pilots witnessed airspeed slowing below target speed and entered into a conversation about appropriate action. Holding leg length was increased from 10 to 15 mile legs in an attempt to reduce AOA and build speed. Throttle was set to Takeoff Go around (TOGA) power and then max power. Airspeed continued to deteriorate and First Officer (FO) requested a lower altitude. ATC advised unable. Airspeed continued to drop and we requested lower again; eventually having to make the decision to [notify ATC] and descend. Radio coverage in the area was poor; perhaps due to the weather; and ATC was unclear of our intentions/actions. We started a descent to FL370 and then got the stick shaker. At that point we made the decision to treat the event as a full blown stall and chose to continue to FL360 for airspeed; following stall recovery profile. After informing ATC of our need to descend numerous times; ATC was still confused or unaware of our intentions. The root cause of the event was an inability of the aircraft to maintain airspeed at 38;000 feet. Further complications resulted from congested airspace and poor radio coverage. To avoid this type of event in the future; holding at 38;000 feet would be avoided!


Second narrative: The root cause of the event was the high altitude holding clearance with a relatively low minimum holding speed combined with turbulent air. The root of the perceived altitude deviation was the lack of clear communication with air traffic control; most likely due to the static interference from the nearby storms.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported they were unable to maintain speed in a holding pattern at FL380 and advised ATC they had no choice but to descend to a lower altitude.