elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I put in a release for Aircraft X for Runway XXL. I called on the shout line right away to coordinate for the aircraft departing Runway XXL for winds since we were advertising Runway YYR. No other aircraft was in the airspace. The closest aircraft was outside of 20 miles and west of the airspace. Approach would not give me a release stating the aircraft was ODO [Opposite Direction Operation] with the IFR arrival. Our LOA and procedures state that this is not considered an ODO operation. The aircraft was delayed over 10 minutes for no reason. Upon the arrival landing; the Approach Controller wanted a landing verification before TRACON Controller would give me a release on the aircraft departing Runway XXL. Which is not a requirement from a Tower controlled airport. The Approach Controller also stated I needed to review LOA PROCEDURES for ODO on the shout line. This Controller unduly delayed an aircraft and was unprofessional on the shout line with me over an aircraft needing to depart a different runway. I also know that the TRACON has had a COVID schedule with several days off and then working again so I don't know if it is a proficiency issue.The Approach Controller needs to review LOA procedures with ZZZ. I would also suggest Controller visit our Tower and try to understand the Tower side of the operation. Controller caused an aircraft to waste gas and prevent expeditious movement of aircraft.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported being delayed by the TRACON due to the TRACON not releasing an aircraft resulting in an airspace incursion.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After arriving I was sent messages from scheduling about taking an empty airplane to ZZZ and then a few more days of flying. I was given a shuttle to the maintenance hangar to get onboard. When the FO and I had everything ready; I opened my window to speak with the ground agent standing outside. He said he had never towed from here before; and he didn't have a headset or wing-walkers. We were parked tightly at an angle between other things; so I asked him if he could get a headset and helpers. I also called maintenance to see if they could send someone out to help the guy. Finally; [the ground agent] came back with a headset and helpers; and he was fabulous about getting us pulled out. We flew to ZZZ and landed just after midnight. We landed and were cleared to the gate. As we were about to turn left; an airport bus almost drove right in front of us going westbound along the road. I hit the brakes. He stopped; but he stopped too close for me to go past him. I flashed all my lights at him and we told ground about that happened. The vehicle behind the bus flashed lights several times. We all needed him to back up but he didn't get it. Then he gunned it and drove right in front of us. We told ground; and I called the tower to clarify the details after landing. The bus was a blue and white design. When we arrived at [the] gate; the agent had positioned the jetway and then left. So we had to wait about 15 minutes for an agent to come and let us out of the jetway in order to avoid setting off security alarms. Make sure bus drivers on the ground know that they should give way to aircraft.




Synopsis: An aircraft Captain reported he had to abruptly apply the brakes to avoid a bus driving in front of the aircraft.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 690 Series
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Both ZMP and ZAU are operating on the ERAM flight processing computer. The flight plan ZMP cleared acft X was CAD..LOT. LOT is a Chicago satellite airport. Acft X was 20N of the ZMP/ZAU boundary when the flight was handed off to Chicago. Upon hand off acceptance at ZAU; ZAU ERAM sent back its own flight plan on the aircraft which ZMP then displayed at the ZMP Sector. The ZAU route included Pref Routing and passed it back to ZMP as though the Controller at ZAU issued it. The ZAU flight plan was CAD..OXI..LOT.ZMP flight plan: CAD..LOT ZAU flight plan: CAD..OXI..LOT. I was training the D Side Controller who was using the route display on the RADAR scope to judge whether to point the flight out. The route display did not match the flight track of acft X; so the R-Side questioned acft X about the route. Pilot said they were going direct LOT; (as cleared); but the ERAM showed them going direct OXI. The D-Side coordinated acft X direct LOT with ZAU to resolve any confusion. The incorrect Route and Route Display lead the ZMP Controller; who is actively controlling the flight; to think the flight was doing something entirely different and may contribute to an Operational Error or Deviation. Recommendation; upon investigation; ERAM AIMS issue a software engineering fix to address this and other similar situations. It has been marked 'Critical' by several facilities and is NOT scheduled to be released in the near future. The situation discribed above mostly occurs in the summer with the summer vacation traffic from Northern Michigan to the Chicago area between ZAU ERAM and ZMP ERAM. A more urgent and dangerous situation with this will occur when ZOB  starts running on their ERAM [Winter] system. ZMP sectors TVC and PLN LO meet ZOB FNT and LAN Lo sectors on a conical boundary. This same situation that is occurring with flights from Northern Michigan to Chicago will also occur with ZOB on the Northern Michigan to Detroit flights. With the shape of the ZMP/ZOB Boundary and sectors; the ZOB ERAM passing back a different flight plan to ZMP sectors will contribute to increased Operational Deviations and possible Operational Errors.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller voiced concern regarding the functionality of the ERAM equipment processing flight plan information.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was given a crossing restriction at PEEDS at 24;000 feet.  I climbed Aircraft Y; a departure off of DCA; to 23;000 feet.  I called traffic to both aircraft as targets appeared likely to merge. The Aircraft X told me they were responding to an TCAS RA. Shortly there after; Aircraft X descended and separation was lost with Aircraft Y.  I verified with Aircraft X that he was supposed to be at 24;000 feet.  He said yes and was going back to 24;000 feet.  Not sure why he descended during the TCAS event to cause a loss of separation. The procedures in place cause TCAS RA's; per the route structure and ZDC SOP.




Synopsis: ZDC ARTCC Controller reported an aircraft descended below its assigned altitude and separation was lost with another aircraft. The ZDC Controller reported their Standard Operating Procedures cause TCAS/RA events to occur.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to level off at FL350; we received a Crossflow Pump caution message. At the time we had about 250 pounds more fuel in the left tank. Both the left and right fuel transfer switch lights were illuminated with a 'FAIL' indication. The Captain was flying and asked that I begin the QRH procedure for the Crossflow Pump caution. This did not rectify the growing imbalance; and we requested from ATC a right turn to try to gravity feed from the left tank. This was unsuccessful and the imbalance continued upwards of 1400 pounds. Due to the imbalance being outside of known limitations; we requested direct to [a nearby alternate]; which was granted. The QRH directed that if unable to resolve via gravity crossflow then the engine on the low side must be shut down; and we accomplished this procedure. Prior to this the Captain transferred control to me so he could run the QRH. With the right engine shut down the imbalance stabilized and began improving. Control was transferred back to the Captain on the downwind vector and he accomplished a gentle and uneventful landing. The cause was a failed fuel crossflow pump and an unsuccessful attempt to gravity cross feed from the heavier tank. The guidance in the QRH could be improved with clearer wording so that this situation could be more rapidly corrected.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after shutting down the right engine in response to a fuel crossflow pump problem.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Decathlon 8KCAB
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Weather 10C; clear; wind 030 at 7 KTS. Student was landing on Runway 08. Upon touchdown the airplane veered significantly to the left. Student attempted to straighten the ground roll using rudders. Student then stated she could not move the rudder. Instructor immediately initiated a go-around. Once airborne and stable; instructor verified rudder pedal was 'stuck.' Upon visual inspection; instructor noticed that the bushing holding the left rear rudder pedal had come loose when the cotter pin had come off and bushing had become lodged into the side wall of the airplane. Instructor managed to reposition the bushing and landed without incident. Mechanic replaced the cotter pin and verified aircraft was airworthy. Although this flight ended without incident; it could have been catastrophic had either a less experienced PIC and/or a more aggressive maneuver (spin) been in operation. My suggestion is to 'wiggle' the rudder pedals prior to spin entry and landings to ensure the rudder pedal is not stuck. A visual inspection would not hurt either.




Synopsis: A Decathlon left rear rudder pedal bushing became loose during flight impeding rudder pedal movement. The Instructor in the aft seat was able to reposition the bushing prior to landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Electric Starter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at 5;500 FT MSL with a student; I was demonstrating an in-flight feather and secure of the right engine. When it came time for a restart; I was unable to start the right engine. I made a single engine landing (uneventful) at a non-towered airport. I was able to taxi to parking on one engine. Mechanic inspected the aircraft and was able to start both engines with a power boost. I was able to fly the aircraft without further incident. Mechanics stated I may have had some kind of short.




Synopsis: A PA34 instructor was unable to restart an engine after an inflight shutdown demonstration so he diverted to a nearby airport where Maintenance was able to start both engines.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I would like to inform you of a situation that occurred upon boarding and during the flight. A woman with four young children [boarded] with a [large service animal] a Bernese Mountain dog.  I could see by the size it was going to be a challenge for that dog to stay under the seats.  As they proceeded to board I ask the agent if this dog was going to fit. The owner of the dog replied 'I travel with the dog all the time'. I advised her that the dog would have to stay out of the aisle during all phases of flight. She agreed to that; but the dog proceeded to lay its head in the aisle. I believe I reminded the owner to keep the dog out of the aisle several times. The owner replied 'As soon as you quit going up and down the aisle he will'. Customers were taking pictures of the dog's head out in the aisle. My concern is for our safety [in an] emergency situation. I tripped over the dog [twice]; as [did] my fellow FA.I would like to suggest there be more specific/stricter guidelines of size of dogs approved to be in aircraft cabin. This is a situation that needs to be investigated a little more. There [are] more and more dogs; bigger and bigger than before.




Synopsis: Q400 Flight Attendant reported a passenger boarded with a large service dog that became a hazard to anyone walking down the aisle.
Date: 201908
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to the 'A' check and working the Flight Deck task cards on Aircraft X. I needed to reconfigure the flight controls to complete two remaining tasks which included the Flap/Slat Electronics Unit (FSEU) Operational Check and the Cat III operational check.  Before turning on hydraulics I obtained clearance. I then noticed that the flap handle was in up position but the flaps were in actuality in the down position.I also noticed that the speed handle in the down position but the spoilers were in actuality in the up position. I decided before turning hydraulics on to reposition the flap handle to coincide with the actual position of the flaps. I also knew that even though engine No. 1 cowling and thrust reverser was still open; the leading edges were already in the up position. I therefore assumed that the leading edges would not move and once I turned on hydraulics that the flaps would retract and the leading edges would remain stationary. Unfortunately; I was wrong. The leading edges began to move instead of remaining stationary.  After consulting with other mechanics; the leading edges sensed that the flaps were down and needed to be down and therefore started to move.I then received verbal communication from the ground to stop my actions but before I could shut down hydraulics the leading edge made contact with the No. 2 engine thrust reverser. I Sincerely apologize and take full responsibility for my action.




Synopsis: Maintenance technician reported leading edge devices extended and contacted the open engine cowling during a routine check.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Pitts S-2 All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The 2 place canopy left the aircraft approximately 2-3 seconds into the takeoff roll. Given the OAT; the aircraft would have become airborne in 5-6 seconds (OAT was 35 degrees Fahrenheit). The canopy 'lock/unlock' lever was found to be in the 'lock' position. We have been unable to determine why the canopy departed. What was done right: 1) the engine control was pulled to idle immediately. The takeoff was done from the 3 point position and it was within a couple of seconds of being airborne with an enormous amount of noise and wind. 2) Pulling the power on a Pitts when it's about to take off; places it in a position where lateral control is difficult. I estimate that the aircraft remained with a foot of the centerline. What I would change: I always fly with sunglasses. With a high overcast I didn't need them. Having them on would have diminished the effect of the wind and protected my eyes from any foreign material. From now on; when flying any airplane with a bubble canopy; I will always wear sunglasses or clear glasses.




Synopsis: Pitts S2 pilot describes the departure of his bubble canopy during the takeoff roll and the rejected takeoff that follows.