elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At the time of the following incident; [reporter] was training [a trainee] on the North Ramp Control Position.Outbound flight Aircraft X was holding short of Alpha and Romeo Hotel from the ramp. Upon notification that Aircraft X was ready to taxi; [trainee] provided control instructions to Aircraft X to taxi via Bravo; hold short of Kilo; and contact ground. Shortly after instructions were provided; inbound flight Aircraft Y taxied on Alpha; through Romeo Hotel; without being provided instructions to taxi to its gate; by a ramp controller. Before taxiing; outbound flight Aircraft X's pilots noticed that the inbound flight; Aircraft Y; was not going to give way; because of this; the pilots of Aircraft X waited to taxi until Aircraft Y was clear of the intersection.Without the situational awareness of Aircraft X's pilots; the two aircraft could have made contact. Upon parking into gate; the pilots of Aircraft Y were advised that they need to contact ramp control prior to Kilo by [reporter] and were provided the telephone number of Ramp Control.




Synopsis: A ramp controller reported observing a conflict where one aircraft was given instructions to taxi; while another aircraft was not. The aircraft would have been a major conflict if one of the pilots did not wait for the other aircraft to move without instructions.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked; Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [About 45 minutes after departure; I] received a 'Weight Change After Closeout' alert. Load planner explained that the station updated the distribution of bags in the pits well after the flight departed. Weight did not change; but Percent MAC changed; indicating a balance issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported receiving notice of weight and balance change about 45 minutes after departure.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower RJAA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Winds at RJAA were forecast to be 220/35 gusting to 46 knots and they were landing runway 16R. Dispatcher had boarded fuel for us to arrive in the RJAA area with 38;000 lbs. with ZZZZ as our primary alternate. The time to ZZZZ was about an hour with a burn of 13;300 lbs. I decided that when we got down to 30;000 lbs of fuel; it would be an appropriate time to divert to the alternate if needed. After holding at several fixes and extensive vectoring for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes; we shot an approach to runway 16R. At about 500 ft; we got a significant increase in airspeed; followed by a wind shear alert. We performed a wind shear escape maneuver with a missed approach. We immediately decided to go to our alternate due to fuel considerations. We were held at a low altitude and vectored away from our alternate until we were out from the RJAA normal air traffic routes. We had conferred with our dispatcher as to where he wanted us go if needed and ZZZZ had been agreed upon. Each new controller was notified that we were a minimum fuel aircraft and needed expedited handling. We requested direct to the outer marker of the ZZZZ runway. Communication was difficult and ATC was relatively uncooperative. Forty miles from the airport; we were notified that distance to landing was 140 miles. The Japanese air traffic control refused to allow us direct to the airport unless we declared an emergency even though there was minimal air traffic at ZZZZ. At that time we had approximately 15;600 lbs. of fuel. We landed with approximately 12;900 lbs of fuel and parked. Block time was 15 hours and 59 minutes. Our Dispatcher; who is one of our more experienced; had the foresight to have us arrive in Tokyo having 38;000 lbs. of fuel; recognizing that this day we might really need it.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they experienced a windshear alert on final to RJAA; executed a go-around; and diverted.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We landed; and on rollout through 80 knots we got an ECAM HYD Green Low Level. The hydraulics system page was displayed and showed low fluid quantity but still normal pressure. I was Pilot Flying and transferred control to the Captain. ATC cleared us to hold while [waiting for] our gate [to] open. The Captain told me to accomplish the ECAM procedure which included turning off the Power Transfer Unit and the Green System Pump. At this point we lost steering and reported to ATC that we were a disabled aircraft with no steering and a hydraulic system failure. We set the parking brake and contacted Company to get towed in. An airport vehicle approached us; established communications and reported fluid leaking from our nose gear. We ran the tow-in checklist and got towed in to [the] gate.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported the loss of the green hydraulic system on landing roll.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RJJJ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While operating on Y808 to ONION Intersection and in radar contact with Tokyo Control; we encountered a line of thunderstorms ahead. We asked Tokyo for an initial left turn to avoid this weather near the route of ONION to KALNA intersections. We were cleared to deviate up to 50nm left of course for weather deviation. We were subsequently cleared to deviate up to 60nm left of track. A few minutes into our deviation; we were asked to contact Tokyo radio to continue via CPDLC communications. As we approached KALIG intersection and correcting back on course after weather deviation; we received several CPDLC text messages asking for a position report and one message confirming our cleared routing (which we were following). Apparently as we had deviated so far to the left around the weather; the FMC had failed to show that we had passed the fix of ONION; which we had passed some 50 nm to our right. It also appeared that Tokyo control had failed to notify the Oceanic controllers of our deviation prior to our handoff. We used text communications via CPDLC to give a position report; (eta to KALIG; Flight level and next reporting point.) Although we never deviated from the from our cleared route except to go around weather with Tokyo Center's permission; It appeared that the Oceanic controller was confused of our routing during our weather deviation.




Synopsis: B747 pilot reported he was questioned on his routing by Tokyo ATC while deviating around thunderstorms.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The event occurred in the landing phase of operation that involved the fiberglass landing gear leg failure. It may have been caused by a hard landing or maybe prior fatigue issues. No one was injured nor was there other property damage. I did not think that it met the specifications of either an accident or even an incident to be reported according to FAR 830. The aircraft affected areas are mainly the failed leg and light scuffing on the right wing tip. I have a Repairman Light Sport Aircraft certificate. The landing was on a grass area parallel to Runway 27. I need to be more aware of the stall speed and to be aware of the approved runways; being a combination of practice and knowledge. I hope that this report satisfies the reporting requirements.There was concern expressed about experimental spray equipment that was installed in place of the rear seat. The equipment used both the seat brackets and was also secured by the seat and shoulder belts. The weight of the equipment weight was much less than allowable passenger weight and in the same place within the center of gravity envelope. I did not feel that a new weight and balance was required and the installation was a minor alteration. Short tubes were installed in the unused main gear bracket with all the balance of equipment being inside the passenger compartment. None of these items would change or affect the handling and flying or safety characteristics of the aircraft. The installed equipment was incomplete and in a testing phase similar to a phase one fly-off. I had not done a log book entry since the installation was still being modified. My intentions were to mount the spray booms and nozzles and then do a weight and balance. The booms would have been a major alteration and have required a phase one fly-off. The log book entries did not keep pace with the installation nor did I have a new fly-off area that differed from the previous owner. This needs to be done. I now realize that I need to be proactive in this process.




Synopsis: A CGS Hawk Arrow II right fiberglass landing gear leg failed during landing causing minor damage to the right wing tip; but no injury. A previous hard landing or fatigue are suspected causes.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Upon entering the aircraft; the brake accumulator pressure was 2;000 psi. The previous Crew reported no issues with the pressure. Turning the B electric pump on immediately brought the pressure back to 3;000 psi. When the pump was turned off; the pressure fell to 2;000 psi in a few seconds. I reported the issue to Maintenance who responded to the aircraft. While troubleshooting the issue; the AMT asked if the previous Crew had waited 10 seconds between turning the A and B electric hydraulic pumps off. The previous Crew had departed; so we were unable to determine the answer. When I asked why he wanted to know this; he responded that the Maintenance manual directs a ten second delay to make sure a shuttle valve has time to complete travel on MAX aircraft. Pilots do not have this guidance; and routinely turn both pumps off at the same time or in quick sequence as part of the shutdown flow. I've experienced low accumulator pressure on several MAX aircraft over the last few months resulting in flight delays; so I thought I should forward this concern.




Synopsis: B737 MAX First Officer reported the maintenance procedure to manage electric hydraulic pumps is not included in pilot manuals; resulting in non standard brake accumulator pressure variance.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The purpose of this report is to record suspected GPS jamming along the borders of Iran while in Turkish and Iraqi airspace. It has occurred in the same location during the past week on a few flights as mentioned by other crew members. The suspected jamming lasted almost exactly 30 minutes while on the following route: EMBAG UM688 SOBIL. Even though there were no deviations; no issues with (ATC) or no permanent system loss; this route is very close to the border with Iran (within 10 miles at some points) and could pose a danger to an aircraft with a malfunctioning inertial reference system (IRS). After passing EMBAG; the EICAS alert 'TRANSPONDER R' appeared. The right transponder was active at the time so we selected the left transponder. We were still in Turkish airspace with positive radar contact. Within a few minutes or so; we noticed the aircraft was no longer receiving GPS inputs to the navigation system; however; the IRS's were functioning properly. There was not an EICAS alert; such as >GPS LEFT; >GPS RIGHT; or >GPS; to bring this to our attention. At [a different coordinate]; the EICAS alert 'TRANSPONDER L' appeared; we switched back to the right transponder. At no time did ATC report a loss of information from our transponder. We entered Iraqi airspace under positive radar contact; the EICAS alert 'TERR POS' displayed. The GPS inputs to the navigation returned and all systems were normal with no EICAS alerts upon recall. The company can look at new routing if this continues to occur.




Synopsis: Captain reported experiencing 30 minutes of GPS jamming while flying along the borders of Iran in Turkish and Iraqi airspace.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Second aircraft: Robinson R44
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon departure; Tower cleared me for departure with left turn out to the north then destination airfield ZZZ1. Simultaneously an R44 helicopter was instructed to enter left downwind at or below 500 ft. with transition landing north ramp. On departure roll I stated that I had the helicopter in sight. During climb out at approximately 400 ft.; I had ADSB traffic alert of aircraft 12 o'clock. I then regained sight of the helicopter that appeared to be at my 11 to 12 o'clock at a very short distance away. I executed an immediate left turn as the helicopter was transitioning from my left to right. Tower then informed me that I cut the helicopter off. I informed the Tower that I saw the helicopter and it appeared that he was transitioning to the other side of runway. During the entire event both aircraft had each other in sight.Things that could mitigate occurrence. My takeoff clearance could have been delayed for landing traffic. I could have continued runway heading or veered to the right and past helicopter then turned north. The Helicopter could have executed a wider pattern rather than a direct transition to their intended landing area.




Synopsis: Departing pilot reported a NMAC with an arriving helicopter.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PRC.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D PRC
ATC / advisory: Tower PRC
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In the position relief briefing I told the relieving controller my plan was to give Aircraft X to Local 2 on upwind and take their C172 pattern aircraft on the downwind. Aircraft X was less than a half mile ahead on Runway 21L upwind compared to the Cessna on upwind Runway 21R. While doing the 2 minute position relief overlap; the Local 2 controller was repeatedly trying to shame the Local 1 controller into taking their Cessna on upwind instead of downwind. The Local 1 controller repeatedly said no because the aircraft were too close together on upwind. As soon as the Local 2 controller talked to Aircraft X they told them to turn right crosswind. They were not within 300 feet of pattern altitude and not even past the departure end of the runway; they passed very close in front of the Runway 21R upwind Cessna for no reason whatsoever other than the Local 2 controller trying to prove a point. This was unsafe and completely unnecessary in my opinion. They had no other traffic at the time. I will attempt to participate in Professional Standards with the Local 2 controller even though this was unsuccessful in the past.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported a Local Controller issue instructions to an aircraft which placed it into a possible confliction with another aircraft in the pattern.