elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMSD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to MMSD; I elected to input the expected approach below discontinuity to be ready to activate the expected approach. I briefed the airway minimums leading to the enroute transition from MARUX fix on V-41. We verified the approach: VOR DME-2 Runway 16 MMSD chart. Upon arrival we were given descent clearance to 8;000 feet then 6;000 feet after MARUX; cleared the VOR DME-2 Runway 16 approach. Once I heard 'cleared for approach' I activated the approach and noted approach navigation and final for the Managed Approach.I set the next segment altitude 3;600 feet and the Approach captured and showed on profile. Upon reaching 3;600 feet; ATC yelled that we were below MVA and we were supposed to be on the Approach at 6;000 feet. We both queried the approach chart; but could not see any other altitude on the approach at our location other than 3;600 feet. We continued on the profile in VFR conditions with the airport in sight. ATC again queried us on the approach and gave a heading to intercept without any altitude clearance. We stated the airport in sight and were given the visual approach. I continued on the Managed Approach to verify crossing altitudes and ground track.Upon landing we both discussed the incident and reviewed the VOR DME-2 Runway 16 chart. First Officer found a notation in the upper left inset that stated 6;000 feet for the small segment that we had descended to 3;600 feet. We both missed this notation in the briefing and review of the approach procedure. Once cleared for the Approach the Managed Approach showed on profile and Final and Navigation had captured. There was no reason to suspect an altitude deviation while on the approach.Both pilots should verify Approach Chart and fixes along with MVA altitudes and minimum segment altitudes. Crossing restrictions and DME fixes need to both be verified and briefed. If there is a way to overlay the MVA minimum altitudes over the approach chart; that would enhance altitude awareness as well as terrain along the approach path.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being notified by ATC that the aircraft was below minimum vectoring altitude for the VOR DME approach being flown. Pilot missed the notation on the approach plate of the altitude requirement for the approach segment in question.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: First Officer was the Pilot Flying. Three minutes after level off at FL350; Engine 1 stall ECAM [was displayed] with loud banging from the #1 engine. Followed the Non-Normal methodology. Ran the ECAM action. With power on the #1 engine at idle we were unable to maintain altitude. Descended to FL240. Finished the QRH follow up procedure.  #1 engine showed all indications normal. Landed without further incident. Startle factor was in full effect. Took me good minute to wrap my head around the event. It was mechanical so I doubt [I could suggest] anything. Add it to a training event perhaps.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported descending to a lower altitude after experiencing #1 engine compressor stall at FL350.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Exit Lighting
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Current SOP has the Passenger Emergency Exit Lights disarmed for 'Go Dark' operations. Because of the new 45 minute report times; Customer Service begins boarding passengers without properly arming Passenger Emergency Exit lights. This violates our SOP and CFR; Part 25; paragraph 25.811. We had a mostly filled airplane at the time of discovery. This is a common occurrence now.




Synopsis: An air carrier First Officer reported company SOP to disarm emergency exit lights for some operations has resulted in passengers being boarded on subsequent flights with the lights disarmed in violation of pertinent FARs.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wingtip
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying between pipes on inspection; had contacted Approach and was under radar coverage. I was not on my usual route around the area. I was told to contact the Tower; and made contact with the tower. Tower issued me the current altimeter and I reported descending as I set the new altimeter I noticed I was 200 feet lower than I thought around 1100 MSL. I had reported my route to approach control and was checking the GPS to make sure I was going to proceed as I had told the controller. While my head was down I heard a WHOOSH! I've never heard that before in a plane I checked my engine instruments thought the RPM fluctuated. I looked for a place to land and thought everything's OK. Then I thought 'I wonder if I hit something; a bird?' I looked around behind the plane and continued on. I'm not sure of my altitude at this time but I think I was about 1000 MSL. I was continuing on my way to my pipe starting point when I felt a vibration in the controls. I decided a look on the ground was warranted and requested a landing. Tower cleared me for right downwind to runway 18; I was thinking how about straight in 36 when the tower asked if I had a problem. I advised I had an aerodynamic issue; and was cleared for straight in runway 36. I thanked him and proceeded straight in. Tower than asked if about fuel on board and somewhere around this time I noticed my right wingtip was gone; and advised tower. Tower advised me he was rolling the equipment; I started to say no; but realized I was having a slight rolling condition and let them come out. Not sure of the low speed control I left the flaps up and flew a faster final to a safe touchdown. Upon exiting the plane and walking around the wing I noticed much more damage than expected. The fuel vent line ripped through the top wing skin back 2 ribs. All screws were gone but one. I'm not sure what happened to cause the wingtip to depart the aircraft. Time in the air on this leg was about two and a quarter hours.




Synopsis: A pilot performing a pipeline inspection contacted an unknown object in-flight and observed an airframe vibration.  He elected to land at the nearby airport to access the damage.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure passing 500-1000AGL; I began to notice abnormally more aft nose down tendency with increased back pressure to the yoke. I attempted to trim nose up; but trim switch would only trim nose down. The auto trim was also trimming nose down as well while accelerating. After a few attempts to trim; both the CA (Captain) and FO (First Officer) trim switches ceased to function. We continued to clean up on schedule and advise ATC that we were having problems controlling the aircraft pitch. I requested a block altitude 4000-6000 and a turn to the west with intent to land back at SeaTac. My FO began trimming nose up to help offset the back pressure. We [advised ATC]; and began running the jammed flight control QRC which led us to the Stab Trim inoperative checklist. My intent was to maintain aircraft control and return to SeaTac. We briefed FAs (Flight Attendants); passengers; advised dispatch; and planned a flaps 15. Landing was uneventful. I chose not to follow the checklist when it directs to engage the autopilot. Because of the yoke back pressure; difficulty maintaining control hand flying; and not knowing for sure what the problem was; I elected to not introduce another variable (autopilot engaging and then abruptly letting go). My intent was to maintain aircraft control hand flying and return to SeaTac. In addition; I did not hand over the controls to my FO to make calls to dispatch; PAs; checklists etc. I determined aircraft control the highest priority.The partial functionality of the trim created Initial confusion with which checklist to start with. The sim profile a few years ago gave an immediate indication with no trim wheel movement. Recommend a possible scenario with partial trim inoperative.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported issues with their elevator trim causing a nose down pitching motion and a heavy yoke.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on temporary duty at ZZZ. I installed a component on a CRJ700 and signed it off. I missed an RII (Required Inspection Item) on this install. It was not inspected by an inspector nor was an inspector involved with my installation of this component. I inadvertently overlooked the RII requirements in the Quick Reference Guide and the Procedures Manual. I was made aware of this via a phone call from a ZZZ Maintenance Supervisor.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Maintenance Technician reported replacing a part and not noticing that an inspection was required. The oversight was detected six days later by a Maintenance Supervisor.
Date: 201506
Location: N03.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Currently; there is a need for safety over-runs at the Cortland County Airport; (N03) because of the type of aircraft flying into and out of the facility. Within the past two years; there have been two aircraft accidents at the Cortland County Airport (N03) both which could have prevented if Safety Over-runs were in place. It is my understanding funding is available for such safety enhancements and this report is the proper document to begin the process for the over-run request.




Synopsis: A Pilot reports that there is a need for safety overruns at the Cortland Country Airport.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We received the weight and balance report at pushback. Our fuel gauges showed 18.8; but the wing tanks were only about 8.3 per side; with 2.2 in the center. I mentioned to the Operations Agent that it appeared they didn't completely fill the wing tanks; and she said that ZZZ is an 'over the wing' fueling station and it's because of the fuel density. I have no idea what an 'over the wing' fueling station means; but using 6.5 for fuel density puts us in the range (+/- 2%) of the gauges. No problem here. Now for the confusion.If you add the fuel; add up the fuel in (6;700 lbs.) plus the gallons added (1949 gallons at a fuel density of 6.5 equals 12;669 lbs.) the total is 19;369. However; the FOB on the Fuel summary shows 18;800. The numbers don't add up on the Weight and Balance report. The only way I can get 18.8 on the gauges with 6.7 inbound and 1949 gallons added is with a fuel density of 6.2.The simple math in the fuel summary block of the Weight and Balance Report does not add up.


Second narrative: When looking at the fuel summary box on the weight and balance report; fuel in (6;700 lbs.) plus fuel added (1;949 gallons at fuel density of 6.5 is 12;699 lbs.) equals 19;369 lbs. However; the fuel on board showed 18;800. The numbers don't add up and we couldn't figure out why.


Synopsis: B737-700 Flight Crew reported confusion with the final fuel numbers.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rejected take off due to an Engine 1 Compressor Vane fault. Airspeed was approximately 75 knots. No autobrake or spoiler activation. Cleared runway; did the ECAM actions and returned to the gate where we changed aircraft and completed our scheduled flight.




Synopsis: An A319 flight crew rejected their takeoff below 80KTS due to a ECAM compressor vane fault warning.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: PA44 was inbound to ZZZ airport from the south. When the aircraft checked on frequency; I picked up the strip for a different aircraft and put it in front of me. The strip I was looking at said VFR; so I had it in my mind that PA44 was VFR.  Obviously I wasn't looking at either the strip or the Data Block on the aircraft closely enough. After flying about 10 or 15 miles toward ZZZ Airport at 100; PA44 said they had the airport in sight and asked if they could descend to 8;000. That's when the light came on and I realized that the aircraft was IFR. I had another aircraft; an IFR Citation coming in fast from the southeast and became focused on how I was going to make the sequence work. Without thinking; I gave PA44 what he had asked for; descent to 8;000 and a vector to follow the Citation. Several minutes later I realized what I had done: this guy was at 8;000 in a 9;000 FT MVA! I was horrified. By that time; PA44 was about to exit the 9;000 FT MVA for an 8;000 MVA. PA44 landed behind the Citation without incident. I'm not sure why I didn't have my head fully in the game; but I intend to be more vigilant from now on.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a below MVA event when handling an IFR aircraft as a VFR and issuing a descent to below MVA limitations.  The reporter listed lack of vigilance as the primary contributing factor.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EUL.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF EUL
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In a busy pattern at EUL with four fixed wing a/c [aircraft] in LH [left traffic] pattern for RWY 12; and four helicopters in RH [right traffic] pattern for taxiway Alpha (12). I radioed downwind; I radioed base and radioed final. Half-way down final my passenger observed an Aircraft Y to our left on a very short base turning onto final. I radioed to say he had cut in front; but no reply. I continued briefly to see his next actions. He landed and I was forced to go around (radioed accordingly). My next approach; following an a/c on finals; and radioing per previously; an a/c taxied onto the runway immediately after the landing a/c touched down. He waited till the landing a/c had cleared and proceeded down the runway. I judged with him accelerating and me decelerating; we could just about make the landing; although it left little margin.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported an NMAC in the pattern at EUL airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZNY
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working [two sectors] combined with a D-side. Washington Metro play book routes were in effect and the WEVEL routing was assigned to Aircraft X. When Aircraft X was west of PSB VOR; level at FL230; ZNY sector ran Aircraft Y; on a westbound heading at FL230 into my airspace without any coordination. The data block said level at FL230 and descending to FL220. When the D-side called ZNY to figure out what Aircraft Y was doing they claimed another sector was talking to that aircraft. When that sector was called (ZNY); they didn't have any knowledge of that aircraft or what it was doing and then hung up the line. In response I had to put Aircraft X on a westbound heading and expedite a climb to FL240. In addition; coordination with the High Sector was required. ZNY never gave us an answer on what they had planned to do to get Aircraft Y out of our airspace or if they were going to change the altitude. The two aircraft came within 12 miles of each other before positive separation was established. ZNY continued to vector the aircraft in my sector without coordination.This is not the first time ZNY has failed to provide answers to questions regarding aircraft under their control. They have refused to answer the land line multiple times or will simply hang up. It is an internal problem at ZNY and should be discussed with their area and facility.




Synopsis: ZDC Center Controller reported that New York Center violated the airspace of ZDC and did not coordinate with ZDC Controllers.