elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Management did briefings on how everyone should wear a mask but yet I still feel like management isn't really watching and making sure that we are indeed compliant with wearing our mask at any time we can't achieve six feet of space. At the same time it looks like Department X management team has reinforced the actions of one who doesn't wear a mask. It looks like all Department X employees are wearing a mask now whenever they can't achieve the six feet of space.I was working a flight with others who didn't have on a mask and I watched someone apart of the management team look at us within six feet of space and continue walking. With something like that happening it makes me just want to walk off the flight. I don't feel safe coming into work because it seems like only a few of us in ZZZ are taking COVID-19 as serious as it should be taken.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported concerns with others not wearing face masks; nor taking COVID-19 seriously.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise; we received an ECAM message stating that pressure in the Green Hydraulic system was low. We followed the appropriate ECAM actions as directed; and elected to return to ZZZ airport. Other than the loss of ground nosewheel steering associated with the Green Hydraulic system; the remainder of the flight and landing was routine and uneventful. This was a mechanical/system malfunction. It would be impossible to anticipate again. Proper emergency and checklist procedures as followed will continue to be the best course of action in any future events.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported low quantity on Green Hydraulic System caused an air turnback and precautionary landing.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out approximately 2 miles east of ZZZ we received a report of traffic at our 1:00 descending. We did not catch the altitude. Approximately 30 seconds later a second call stating 'Traffic at your 1:00 one mile; descending through 8;400 FT.' At that moment I was also at 8;400 FT and could not see the [aircraft] likely due to the cowling blocking the view in my climbing attitude. I decided to make my climb more aggressive however approximately 5 seconds after the Towers call; my friend and flight instructor saw the traffic inbound near our altitude [so he] pulled the yoke all the way back until [we received a] stall warning. [The aircraft] passed beneath us. I believe ATC began to ask for evasive maneuvers however the traffic had already passed and was no factor. ATC was behind the curve. Evasive maneuvers should have been asked for earlier.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and student pilot were advised by Air Traffic Control of another aircraft in their vicinity; but they were unable to acquire the traffic visually. While they were still climbing; and looking for the traffic; they were advised that the aircraft was descending through their altitude and within one mile. They pitched up aggressively and spotted traffic pass just beneath them.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Windshear; 2500
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After flying for approximately one hour; ATC on several occasions would attempt to send me through a line of severe thunderstorms. I was given the approval for deviations as needed to avoid build ups. At one point I requested to fly from my position to ZZZ and was granted permission to go direct ZZZ. Before arrival at ZZZ I was given direct to an intersection (I believe ZZZZZ) but cannot recall. That vector took me through an area of severe turbulence that caused the airplane to pitch up and climb rapidly. To avoid damage to the aircraft I disengaged the auto pilot and altitude hold. At some point a downdraft started a rapid descent that seemed to be several thousand feet per minute; I can't be sure. I had to fight to maintain control of the aircraft. Looking at the flight path and radar; I believe the turbulence was near ZZZZZ1 intersection. I believe just prior to this event; I had been instructed to descend from my current altitude to 4000 ft. and was in the process of doing so when the turbulence occurred. When I finally cleared the violent weather; a very nice controller from [Center] called and asked my assigned altitude and I replied 4000 ft. When he called I checked my altitude; I was at 3200-3300 ft. Either I had not recovered or the Altitude hold had kicked off as I recall. As I said; the controller was very nice and did not seem to have an issue; but I felt I should report this incident. No one was hurt; and to the best of my knowledge there were no other planes in the area. Looking back over my flight path you can see this occurred ESE (East South East) of ZZZZZ1.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported severe turbulence.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was loading the front of the aircraft with the loader of a Widebody aircraft. While pallets were being loaded on the aircraft; I miscalculated the locks to be up on each pallet as to how I did it; which was in the front and rear. I have been on a leave of absence due to COVID; for three months and this was my first Widebody I have worked on since my return.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported incorrectly operating the cargo loader and made reference to being off of work due to a leave of absence for COVID-19.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Distribution
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: In a Crew Briefing for mechanics at ZZZ this afternoon the briefer; Supervisor shared a memo from our flight department concerning 737 engine fuel leaks. It correctly states the fuel leaking from the engine drains is not unusual and may stop after the engine operates (Ref. AMM 71-71-00-200-801-F00). However it instructs our pilots to ignore the fuel leaks; start the engines and conduct a leak check after five minutes of engine idle run. The memo also instructs pilots that 'maintenance participation is not required' for this idle power leak check. It does not specify who is to conduct this leak check other than to direct the crew not to involve the people who are trained and qualified for the task. It provides inaccurate information on leak limits.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the flight department communicated to pilots that maintenance is not to be involved in engine fuel leak check involving an engine idle run.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The preflight was normal; I verified with my student that the aircraft's control services were operable and in an airworthy condition; at the time no defects were noted in the preflight. The student and I then proceeded to go through all of our normal checklists. Everything was normal until the climb at which I noticed my student seemed to be struggling with controlling the wind drift during the climb. At the time I attributed this to the student just needing to work on his control of the aircraft. ATC then began vectoring us for our departure to the west and I didn't think about the wind drift. ATC assigned us a heading of 280 and I noticed my student was again struggling to maintain that heading; I started correcting him and he made it back to his heading. Sometime after that I noticed that my student put both hands on the yoke in order to maintain the heading. I then took control and realized that the ailerons were extremely stiff when attempting to control them to the left.At that point I realized that something must be up and I queried ATC and requested to return to [our departure airport] to land. I did not declare an emergency because in the moment I felt no need to being that I had control of the airplane and felt the flight would be safe. ATC cleared us straight in on XXL and the approach and landing was normal. Upon post flight the ailerons appeared to be normal just as they were in the preflight. I think the takeaway for me is to ask the student next if something doesn't feel right. I assumed the poor heading control was my student and not the aircraft. Next time I will be sure to verify the airplane's controls are functioning properly when I suspect my student may be having issues controlling the aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported very stiff ailerons in flight that appeared normal prior to takeoff and after landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SUX.Airport, IA
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SUX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Pilot of Aircraft X was issued taxi instructions from the terminal to Runway 13 via Taxiway C; D; A; crossing Runway 18 at D. The pilot began taxiing in the wrong direction. I advised the aircraft they were proceeding in the wrong direction and offered Runway 31 and issued the current winds. The pilot responded they did want Runway 13 and informed me via the Ground Control frequency the published FAA diagram is out of date for the current conditions. The pilot stated the airport diagram is confusing and does not reflect the current layout of the airport and was making taxiing the night prior confusing. Our facility has reported this to local FAA management for the past several month due to on-going construction. The airport operator; city of Sioux City; IA; has failed to maintain the published airport diagram and maintain current NOTAMs for the current conditions of the airport. Local facility management has failed to address controller concerns at local airport meeting to which management attends regularly. Recommend the airport bring the current airfield NOTAMs and airport diagram up to date to reflect the current conditions of the airfield. This has been a major complaint from pilots since spring of last year.




Synopsis: SUX Tower Controller reported that an airport taxi diagram is out of date; causing confusion among aircraft taxiing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our flight was originally assigned the WILBR4 Arrival into DFW. Near LIT ATC reassigned us on the SEEVR1 and cleared us direct RRNET. We were then told to descend to FL260. Just prior to SWTCH intersection we were cleared to 'Descend via the BRDJE1; delete the speeds except comply beginning at SEEVR.' We had SEEVR1 in the GFMS and on our iPads and; as the Pilot Flying I noticed I had to rush to comply with the crossing restriction at THEMM (between FL230 and FL210). I began a descent and was at FL230 before I realized we had been reassigned to the BRDJE1 and had the wrong arrival programmed into the GFMS. I crossed TUSLE intersection at FL230; 3000 feet low; and then resumed the BRDJE1 Arrival without further incident. Many of the RNAV Arrivals into DFW have the same names for fixes with vastly different crossing restrictions. Were SEEVR intersection assigned a different name for the BRDJE1 Arrival; that would have not matched up with what I was seeing on my iPad or on the GFMS and would have clued me in on the reassignment when ATC told us to 'comply beginning at SEEVR.' Also a factor was that the timing of the reassignment was late into the SEEVR1 Arrival and was not accompanied by any verbal indicator such as 'now cleared via the BRDJE1 Arrival...'


Second narrative: It is obvious to us that it is a bad idea to mix waypoint and arrival names on different arrivals. SEEVR should not be a point on the BRDJE arrival; and BRDJE should not be a point on the SEEVR arrival. That; combined with ATC clearing a flight on the wrong direction arrival; switching to correct 'sister' arrival after the first arrival was already started; is a setup for unmanageability.


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported deviating from a crossing restriction on DFW RNAV BRDJE1 arrival. Crew cited last minute change in arrival assignment and common names between arrivals as factors in the incident.
Date: 201701
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
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On returning to my home base from a local flight the gear was selected down.  No green lights were observed; recycled gear with no result.  Ground personnel reported that the left gear appeared not to be completely down.  Gear selected up; then emergency extension attempted manually in accordance with the pilot's operating handbook. No green lights indicated but ground reported that the gear appeared to be down.  A normal landing was performed with the aircraft maintaining the runway centerline until the gear collapsed at a very low speed upon which it departed off the left side of the runway.Damage limited to the left gear and one blade of the propeller was damaged as the nose settled.  No injuries or fuel spillage.




Synopsis: Alpi Aviation Pioneer 300 pilot reported the landing gear collapsed on landing resulting in damage to the left gear and propeller.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC had been vectoring us to gain separation and they asked to slow to slowest possible speed while enroute to LAX. We were 'number 2 in sequence following an Airbus 380.' While descending through approximately 32;500 MSL between waypoint DOUIT and CROWY; we experienced a significant 'burble' and roll to the right. Automation was disengaged and roll was arrested immediately while resuming normal flight parameters. Then it occurred again within approximately 1-2 minutes. We reported our encounter to ATC and requested more divergent heading and altitude from the suspect wake-generating aircraft; the A380. We did not have visual contact with the traffic. We assessed the aircraft; the crew; the passengers. One of the FAs was knocked down and the back of the aircraft was a mess due to service items being dislodged. Passengers were all fine. PAs were made to inform passengers about the situation. Messages were sent to Dispatch and destination. Customer service support was requested as well. Upon final approach into LAX; we were once again trailing the same A380 and winds were very; very light. We requested more spacing as we were landing on same runway. Approach and landing were uneventful.Wake turbulence separation criteria for super-heavies needs to be assessed and perhaps more separation is necessary. Unfortunately; even with adequate spacing today we experienced a significant event that may be prevented in the future.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on descent to LAX in trail of an A380. They stated 'perhaps more separation is necessary' behind super jumbo aircraft.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FDK.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D FDK
ATC / advisory: Tower FDK
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in the traffic pattern at FDK; another plane that was cleared for takeoff and departing to the east; flew right into the traffic pattern that was in left pattern for the active runway. I was concentrating on the aircraft I was following on and maintaining separation from which is why I didn't see the aircraft coming.The aircraft came close enough that I could see the individual fins in the engine cowling. The pilot in question didn't realize he did anything bad.I had to pull power to idle; went partially weightless in the seat with the student; and approximately 45+ degrees pitch down in order to avoid the aircraft. I recovered at about 400 feet AGL before climbing back into the traffic pattern.There isn't really a chain of events here; or a complex swiss cheese model; this was a reckless pilot who disregarded scanning for other aircraft and nearly collided with another.I've personally had two ATC directed; and three total (including this one) near misses within 2-3 nm of the field at FDK.




Synopsis: Light aircraft Instructor Pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the traffic pattern at FDK airport.