elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was assigned aircraft to check and placard the aft crew rest l/h fwd curtain; which was currently placarded; by Personnel XX. The aircraft arrived at gate and was pulled by the pull crew to go to the departure gate. The aircraft arrived on the departure gate. I went out to check on the crew rest curtain that I was assigned. When I entered L2 door and walked through the cabin; I noticed an unknown substance throughout the entire cabin; but not limited to overhead bins; ceiling panels; sidewall trim; galleys and interior door trim; and I created a [maintenance ticket]. I notified Personnel XX of what I discovered; he said he would let Supervisor XX know to come out and sign off the logbook. Supervisor XY came out and Mechanic XX was interior ETOPS; doing his check when we showed Supervisor XY the unknown substance in the cabin. I pointed and used my flashlight to show him the areas that I saw with the unknown substance in the cabin Personnel XX sent me a text to go to lunch; I was in the middle of assisting Mechanic XX on a PIREP with the f/c ovens that would only show the temp in c and the flight attendants wanted the temp to show in f. I was sent to lunch as a retaliatory action by Management and Personnel XX for writing up the unknown substance in the log book. Personnel XX asked other mechanics who were on lunch if the wanted a broken lunch ( .5 hrs. overtime) while he sent me to lunch. I was assigned to work on that aircraft; Personnel XX never sent Mechanic XX or Mechanic XY to lunch; they both were handed sheets signed by Personnel XX to receive their paid lunch; I was not. The aircraft [maintenance ticket] was signed off by [Company] Management Supervisor XX. Inspected aircraft with environmental coordinator found to be consistent with previously affected airplanes to be over-spray of disinfection residue. [Company] policy and procedures have not been followed; the Environmental Manual section [for] spill response guide for line stations; Unknown Spill Identification Checklist and [Company] Form XX Checklist not done. Aircraft signed off going out on trip.




Synopsis: B787 Mechanic reported unknown dried substance residue throughout the cabin. Entered in aircraft logbook and and reported to Supervisor.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A PA34 departed BDG and was IFR to GUP via E91. MEA between BDG and E91 is 100 and MEA between E91 and GUP is 110. Pilot was advised he needed to climb to 110 at E91. Loss of communication [occurred] prior to E91. I made every attempt to contact pilot via relay through another airborne aircraft; guard frequency; every transmitter and backup site. Pilot entered 110 MEA at 100. Eventually contacted pilot on adjacent frequency and climbed to 110. Recommend issuing lost communications and climb instructions prior knowing losing communications; except I did not know I was going to lose communications.




Synopsis: A ZDV Controller described a below MEA event when a pilot failed to respond to a climb clearance because radio difficulties. The reporter noted a loss com clearance would have prevented the event but radio failure is totally unpredictable.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On VFR visual approach to Runway XXL at ZZZ; Second in Command (myself) was in communication with another flight which had just landed on Runway XXR.  Pilot in command in left seat was pilot flying and I was pilot monitoring.  Our selected course was direct to ZZZZZ for a GPS approach. Passing approximately 4;500 feet for selected altitude of 4;100 feet a 'terrain' advisory sounded.  Descent was arrested and we temporarily returned to 4;500 feet.   No further warnings; remainder of the flight was uneventful.  I figured out that we were northeast of a mountain peak; whose highest obstacle is an antenna at 3;600 feet.  Our lowest altitude above ground level was estimated 1;500 feet.




Synopsis: BE400 pilot reported that while descending on a Visual Approach they received a Terrain Alert.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Ultralight
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I checked the fuel and pumped the squeeze bulb to prime the engine for start. After the engine started I allowed it to warm up for six minutes then taxied to the end of the approximately 1;520 FT long runway where I performed an engine run-up and magnetic test before performing a full throttle takeoff. The engine developed full power for takeoff and climb until 300 AGL where it lost power. I tried unsuccessfully to regain power by adjusting throttle and then nosed down to maintain airspeed and attempted to execute a 180 degree turn back to the runway. There wasn't enough altitude to execute the turn back and an off field landing was made. Aircraft damage was sustained but there were no injuries.I notified the NTSB on form 6120.1 and also made phone contact. A possible cause for the loss of power was vapor lock in fuel line. The investigation is ongoing.




Synopsis: The pilot of an ultra light attempted a turn back to the field after the engine failed at about 300 AGL. The attempt was unsuccessful and an off field landing was made with minor damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we advanced the throttles for takeoff; prior to reaching max trust (as requested by Maintenance); we heard a load bang and the plane swerved. I aborted the takeoff at a low speed of about 30 knots. The Tower Controller advised us that we had lots of black smoke coming out of our number 2 (right) engine. Engine temp never triggered an engine fire warning but once we had things under control we shut down the engine per checklist. As we exited onto the taxiway we stopped to allow emergency response crew to look over the engine. They soon returned to our view and gave us the signal that it was safe to taxi to the gate.




Synopsis: A B777 Captain rejected the takeoff at a low speed after takeoff thrust was set and the right engine failed with a bang. The QRH was completed and the engine shutdown.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We pushed back from [gate] and our taxi instruction was Taxiway G to Runway 9L; cross Runway 21R; then Taxiway W for Runway 21L departure. And unfortunately I missed the left turn onto Taxiway W. However quickly realized it and stopped just past Taxiway W. Contacted Ground and advised them. They asked us if we could make 180 turn which we replied yes and so they cleared us to do so and from then on operation was normal. Upon landing at our destination I contacted Tower and discussed the event with Supervisor and we both agreed that having more lights on could help avoiding such issues. Not much lighting on the taxiway signs and being a night time operation as well as the fact that I got slightly distracted as first officer was running before takeoff check list and he sort of had his head down. I'll have more lights on next time I taxi at night and pay much closer attention to the taxiway signage.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported taxi error due to poor airport lighting.
Date: 201707
Location: ZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were part of a scheduled deadhead crew transporting from the airport to the hotel on our scheduled transportation with the working crew. The bus was involved in an accident enroute to the hotel trying to avoid another accident on the highway that had just occurred. There were at least 8 cars and 2 buses involved in this accident and remained on the highway in the bus after an analysis of the overpass we were stranded on. There were [multiple] employees on the bus. There were 2 Flight Attendants injured involving ankle and possible concussion; the rest were shaken up and had minor aches and pains at the time after the incident. We called the cell phone of the Station Manager; from Airport Database and the hotel as well as scheduling for the 2 injured Flight Attendants. A second bus was dispatched to the scene and it took about 1 hour for that bus to arrive. Upon arrival at the hotel the 2 injured Flight Attendants; requested transport to a hospital; and I as one of the 2 Captains; went with them in a cab to the hospital. The Flight Attendants were treated and released after a couple hours.The other safety issue to this event was the lack of being able to communicate easily with the company; station; hotel. While we were on the bus our IPads do not have Skype; or any other communication program that we were aware of. We obtained a cell phone from one of the language qualified Flight Attendants and had previously looked up the contact numbers including the cell number of the Station Manager. We were stuck on the bus; on the highway; minimal communications. The reason for the report is to highlight the safety issue; and a security issue of lack of communications available to crew members at the time of an incident. This happened to be an auto/bus accident but with the possible issues across the world both security and other weather events or earthquakes; what is the communication tool or policy the company has to allow its crew members across the world to communicate if involved in a event? If an event occurs and cell phones/ cell towers are down; is there another means to communicate?




Synopsis: Captain reported being involved in a traffic accident on the crew hotel bus in a foreign country. The reporter highlighted the difficulty communicating with the company in the event of a disaster when abroad.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU; 10
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other 91 Reposition Leg
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: That day; after completing the check rides; I was tasked by the company president to ride along as an observer the next day on a line mission in order to evaluate the performance of the only other company pilot. I told the PIC I was not a SIC; I was there simply to observe.During a climb; the PIC exceeded a published engine limitation of 104% NG by; what I remember seeing; 0.1 % NG. I would estimate about 1.5 seconds. I could be wrong; but this I remember; it happened and was over so fast. The PIC did not choose to land & I did not force him to. We continued the flight for another hour or so with no issues and everything running and indicating normal.I did not personally check with the maintenance department to see if the PIC had advised maintenance. I made an even worse mistake by allowing us to fly again the next day without knowing if the PIC had contacted maintenance or not. We returned to base the following afternoon. I should have grounded the aircraft until I knew definitively the aircraft was airworthy.Today; I took the initiative and contacted the Director of Maintenance and the president of the company about what happened.Lesson learned: I allowed my 'observation' role to supersede my duty to intervene. It will never happen again; I know better.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that an aircraft was allowed to continue flying following an observed engine limitation exceedance.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Crew Seat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 1 Jump seat pivot bolt nearly detached from receiver. This is the 3rd or 4th report on this specific issue; in as many months.  If this bolt detaches; one side of the jump seat is no longer attached/secured to the wall. Maintenance repaired issue; reinserted bolt into wall receiver. Why is this still happening?




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the Cabin Jump Seat pivot bolt found nearly detached from receiver.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HLN.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Tower HLN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Bonanza 35 was inbound to HLN on V2. He was cleared to hold at SWEDD intersection. He acknowledged the holding instructions. He was instructed to hold at SWEDD South East as published EFC. ZLC Sector 12 called and advised the Bonanza 35 was well North of the airway and I told them I would check on it but he was probably setting up for the hold at SWEDD. The Bonanza 35 advised he was established in the hold at SWEDD. At that point I did not ask him if he was North of the airway. I was relieved of the position. During the brief relieving Controller was instructed that the Bonanza 35 was in the hold at SWEDD. The Bonanza 35 later had a altitude deviation and during a phone call to Management said he was never in the hold at SWEDD but rather just flew NE bound for blue sky. Lack of RADAR in HLN left me unable to monitor the Bonanza 35 to ensure he was flying the hold as instructed.  Better IFR training for the Bonanza 35 would have prevented the misunderstanding of how to fly a published hold.




Synopsis: HLN Controller described a confused holding event when a pilot issued holding instructions failed to enter hold as prescribed.
Date: 201211
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing LAS the other day we were given a takeoff clearance that said; 'do you have Air Carrier Y on the runway in sight?' We said; 'Yes we do.' The Tower Controller said; 'Air Carrier X keep the [traffic] in sight; cleared for takeoff 25R.' This type of clearance is given at several airports around the country too. I have some observations and questions. I am accelerating down the runway; checking the engine and aircraft performance; distance remaining; winds/windshear; evaluating the entire situation inside my aircraft to ensure that we are executing a safe and proper takeoff. Now I am expected to do this and keep the preceding aircraft in sight. That is way too much to ask. If you want to conduct departures safely it is an impossible thing to ask. I CAN NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL AND ENDORSED BY THE FAA! [I] have asked this question of several operations inspectors; tower controllers and company Check Airman. I have gotten many different answers and there is no clear consensus as to what I am to do. The question is this in two parts. 1) If I accept the clearance to keep the proceeding aircraft in sight how long am I required to keep him in sight? When does this requirement end? 2) What are my required actions/reports if I cannot keep him in sight? To me this is a lazy controller tasking me with doing his job even though I have more than enough to do already.




Synopsis: LAS Air Carrier departure voiced concern regarding an ATC instruction to 'sight' another departure from a parallel runway; the reporter claiming the subject separation is the responsibility of controllers.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was the first test flight of a Aircraft X after production. The aircraft had TCAS I installed but not TCAS II. I was established on downwind north of ZZZ at 3;000 ft. being vectors by Approach control for an ILS to Runway XXR at ZZZ. Prior to the base turn I noted on TCAS an aircraft co altitude at my 10 O'clock position. When ATC gave us a base turn I asked the Controller if he had the 10 o'clock traffic on radar as he was turning us toward the traffic. He stated that the traffic was moving southwest and therefore not a factor. After completing the turn south on a base leg I identified the traffic visually. I determined we were co altitude moving rapidly toward each other and initiated a climb to avoid the traffic. I advised Approach of a near miss and our traffic avoidance climb. Approach subsequently vectored us for ILS and landing without any further issues.




Synopsis: A Corporate pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid conflicting traffic which ATC had advised would not be a factor.