elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DXR.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D DXR
ATC / advisory: Tower DXR
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Runway 35 was in use at DXR (Danbury Airport) that day. The Tower cleared me for takeoff and instructed me to fly a 2 miles upwind leg before making a right turn to my destination. I complied.As I was climbing roughly through 2;000 feet; and flying past the Western CT State University complex; about 1.8 miles from DXR; I leveled off to let the engine breathe and look over the nose of the airplane for traffic. As I did that; I saw another airplane; conceivably another C-182; coming at me slightly to the right of my flight path and slightly above me. At about the same time; TCAS alerted me to the presence of another airplane straight ahead and about 150 feet above me.I took evasive action by sharply turning to the left. The other airplane also took evasive action by sharply turning in the opposite direction. So; we avoided a collision. It was a close call! Both; the pilot of the other aircraft; and I; acknowledged so on the tower frequency. The tower never inasmuch as acknowledged the exchange between us.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot departing DXR experiences a NMAC at 2;000 feet with another C182 arriving DXR. Evasive action is taken by both pilots. The Tower never advised either aircraft of the conflict.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff we were in a right hand turn to a heading and roughly climbing from 2000 to 5000 when we received a SMOKE TOILET EICAS indication. Shortly after we received a call from the FA. I then transferred the controls to the First Officer and told him to set up for an approach to return to the airport. I then [advised] ATC. I then spoke with the Flight Attendant and he stated that an alarm was going off in the lavatory and that there was visible smoke in the cabin. I told him that we will be returning to the airport. I proceeded to give the FA a briefing. I then proceeded to run the QRH for SMOKE TOILET. The First Officer had us set up on final approach as the controls were transferred back to me for landing. I informed the First officer that I told the Flight Attendant to anticipate an expedited deplaning upon landing and that we would further evaluate the cabin condition after landing. We landed and exited on an intersecting runway. Fire and Rescue determined that there were not any hot spots from both inside and outside the aircraft. The Flight Attendant had also indicated that the smoke had cleared so we decided to keep the passengers on the aircraft. We then proceeded to return to a gate and deplaned the passengers.The cause of the event is unknown as the source of the smoke was not found. The aircraft had shown a history of the same indications twice in the last two months. I would suggest further maintenance diagnosis when there is visual indications of smoke.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after experiencing a 'SMOKE TOILET' message and the Flight Attendant reported smoke in the cabin.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was off gate; Operations called requesting assistance in pitting 'Item 1 from pit 6 to pit 4' in review found Item 1 was in fact a cargo shipment containing HAZMAT. Also in Pit 6 was a Q shipment of 13 lbs that was Hazmat. There were 3 failures and safety concerns involved with this. 1- the Hazmat was loaded (875lb cargo shipment) in Pit 4 with this aircraft still having a nesting system installed. 2- there was not the required 15 bags loaded in pit 6 ONLY 7 bags were finalized. And last the [load plan] was not followed. Aircraft was pulled out of sequence and returned to gate for movement of cargo.




Synopsis: Airline Ramp Personnel reported aircraft gate return to correct three erroneous Hazmat transport configurations.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am not sure this is the correct plane or not as I forgot to write it up after my trip. I have a safety concern with the location of the survival kit lanyard on the OW (Over Water) aircraft. There is no way I would be able to attach the survival kit in a ditching as you can't get your hand back there to attach it as you can't get your hands that far back to get the lanyard. I would like to see a video of a Flight Attendant attaching the survival kit please; using a normal sized male flight attendant with the door closed. This move is putting crew and passengers at risk of not having the needed supplies in a ditching.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant reports that the Survival Kit Lanyard is placed in an inaccessible location on the aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I submitted a report which dealt with overtankering on Airbus aircraft exceeding the max FOD (Fuel on Departure) guidelines.Any performance or structural limiting weights and FOD limits must be protected by the margins listed in the Fuel Policy Guidelines at DISPATCH HOME PAGE > FLIGHT > FUEL > FUEL POLICY GUIDELINES. MAX FOD for [this aircraft] is 36000 LBS. Since my [previous] report submission was submitted 12 more of the same violations of policy/overtankering have occurred; including the same personnel included in the initial report; on the very same flight/city pair.




Synopsis: An air freight carrier Dispatcher reported about exceeding structural limits when over fuelling an Airbus aircraft; some dispatchers continue the unsafe tankering practice.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: After being cleared direct TEB by NY approach; while descending through 3300 ft a drone was observed passing beneath the aircraft by approximately 200-300 ft. Location was 3.5 NM west of TEB at approximately 3000 ft. Drone was 3-4 ft of wingspan moving east to west at an indeterminable speed (we were at 180 kts). White in color; no markings. Event reported to ATC. We needed no evasive actions and continued a visual approach to an uneventful landing.


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


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported sighting a UAV in the vicinity of TEB at 3;300 feet.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I forgot to brief the exit row Aircraft X; because we were dealing with three mask issues. I was able to brief our guest once we were in the air.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported not giving the exit row briefing because they were dealing with face mask issues.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-7
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Came in close proximity to skydivers. I was monitoring the Pittsburgh approach frequency; but did not hear any mention of jumpers at the Petersburg Airport prior to the incident; possibly because of conversation with my passenger. I think a mile or two no fly restriction should be placed around all jump zones to prevent what could have been a tragic event.




Synopsis: Maule MX7 pilot reported a 'close proximity' event to skydivers in the vicinity of Petersburg airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E 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; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A PA28 [was] traveling westbound on a vector to avoid high minimum IFR altitudes (MIA's). He was level at FL140 when the MSAW started to flash. I told SME we had a faulty MSAW alert. When I finished my traffic scan I noticed that he was at FL135; the MIA is FL138. I told him he was low and gave him the area's altimeter. He said he was picking up moderate icing and could not hold altitude and said he needed to turn around. I recommended a right 360 and issued the low altitude alert phraseology. He asked for a vector and I recommended a turn to the west which I misspoke then recommended an easterly heading. He wanted a vector to a nearby airport and I gave that to him when he cleared the high MIA. He then proceeded to the airport and landed. Nothing could prevent the situation; but I should have declared an emergency to better help him out.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an icing event that prohibited a PA28 from holding altitude and entering a below MIA situation. The reporter noted he should have declared an emergency for the aircraft in this situation.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After shutdown checklist and all debriefs complete; and getting ready to disembark aircraft; RFO mentioned that the aircraft had some damage. I was flabbergasted because I was unaware of any errors or actions we would have done to cause any damage!  As soon as I stepped over to the door and the top of the stairs; it was obvious that part of the right inboard slat had been damaged. It appeared that the outer edge (which is a shiny metallic verses dull aluminum) had been torn back and was missing rivets. Maintenance notified us of the damage after we blocked in; and we have no idea how it occurred. Obviously there was a problem when the slats were retracted; something caught and caused the metal to be bent up and away from the wing; tearing the rivets out. As a crew; we were unaware of any damage during the flight until after we had blocked in. I asked maintenance if they wanted me to write it up; but they said they would do it since it was damage noted on the post flight inspection. Upon arriving at the hotel I called the Dispatch to inform them about aircraft damage per FOM. I verified they did write it up by checking the aircraft maintenance history.I was unaware of any damage to the aircraft until we blocked in. It could have occurred on slats retract on departure or possibly on the after landing checklist. There were no alerts in the aircraft; nor did there seem to be any adverse performance affects over the 9+ hour flight.


Second narrative: Upon further inspection; it appears the moveable slat edge cover had bound up on the fixed slat cover and partially tore the fixed slat cover plate off the wing during the retraction process. No flight issues were noted that would have caused this damage. This damage was not done prior to departure. No odd flight characteristics were recognized by the flight crew.


Synopsis: After gate arrival; Maintenance notified the crew that the left wing inboard slat movable edge cover bound on the fixed slat cover and partially tore the fixed slat cover plate off.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During the night shift line; we were assigned to Aircraft X with an A check and Right Hand Main Landing Gear strut leak. Maintenance procedure called out for by Tech services was to be accomplished prior to further flight due to the fact that time for the issued [maintenance] items had expired. We could not accomplish the procedure on the line. I inspected the Right Hand Main Landing Gear strut seal and found no evidence of leakage. I signed off [the maintenance] repetitive inspection. I did not sign off [the maintenance action of] Tracking purpose or Permanent Repair. On returning to work on [a later date I] went into safe to find out how the items had been signed off. Only to find out that my number had used to sign off both [maintenance actions]. Entries where entered into safe with my employee number by [other personnel]. Safe entries do not match logbook entries.The company needed the airplane in haste and items were falsely documented. Disregard for safety and procedures outlined in the aircraft maintenance manual and [problems] occurred.Safety and in accordance with procedures should be top priority over flight schedules. Basic mgmt. skills should be used to allocate priority aircraft to hangars when needed.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported that items were falsely documented using his employee number.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on dogleg to final for a visual approach to 24R; I noticed a drone at about 200 feet distance on the right side of the aircraft. The drone appeared to be a quadcopter; black and about two feet in size and was reported to ATC immediately.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported a close encounter with a UAV while on a visual approach to LAX.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cooling Fan; any cooling fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Coming off the layover we met the inbound plane; Maintenance was already on board saying the previous mechanics improperly complied with a MEL for the avionics cooling. Maintenance signed off their work and we proceeded as normal. On the takeoff roll we received a caution message for a skin air vent fault at around 95 knots. We continued the takeoff and addressed the ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) message immediately after completing the 'after take-off' checklist. I was pilot flying and working the radios as the Captain ran the ECAM and QRH follow up. Since the ECAM told us to depressurize the cabin and not exceed 10;000 ft; the decision was made to divert to [a nearby alternate]. At this time we were over are landing weight; but the abnormal situation did not warrant an overweight landing. On our way to [our alternate] we experienced MCDU (Multifunction Control Display unit) Overheat messages followed by the MCDU's blanking out. At one point both MCDUs were blank for a minute or two. Also I remember seeing 'GPS Primary Lost' on the Captain's ND (Navigation Display). Since the problem seemed like it was escalating and we were operating with a degraded form of navigation; the decision was made to divert to [a closer alternate]. Before landing we ran the Overweight Landing checklist and had ARFF (Airport Rescue and Firefighting) standing by in case of a hot brake situation. During all of this we had another company Captain in the jump-seat who was included in the conversation and decision making.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing multiple systems failures related to loss of equipment cooling.