elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were back-taxiing on runway while another aircraft entered the traffic pattern on an extended left base for [the same] runway. We decided to expedite our back taxi so we could depart before the traffic was on final; however the other pilot decided to do a 'modified' final; which took less time; and we elected to continue to the beginning of the runway and hold at the beginning of the displaced threshold to wait for landing traffic. As the instructor; I felt like this was the safest course of action since there were no taxiways to exit the runway. However; I believe that if the other pilot had entered the traffic pattern in the downwind; rather than the base; and flown a longer final; then this would have been avoided. The other aircraft landed safely and after he cleared the runway; we departed.




Synopsis: PA-28 flight instructor reported holding at the end of the runway while another pilot landed due to lack of a taxiway at the non-towered airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: As I was reviewing deferred items at the start of the day; I noticed [an Airbus A319] had the ground spoilers 3 and 4 deferred under an MEL. While reviewing the MEL I saw that the MEL [procedure called for] pulling the circuit breaker for SEC (spoiler elevator computer) 3 which renders required ground spoilers 1 and 2 inoperative. The aircraft had already flown one flight [in this condition]. I immediately grounded the aircraft. [The station Maintenance personnel] cleared the issue with a SEC 1 replacement. MEL Engineering was again notified of the MEL problem and they have provided access restrictions to the MEL. I confirmed that the restrictions were in place.




Synopsis: The approved A319/320 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) allows for deferral of one pair of spoilers provided that the associated SEC was deactivated by pulling the circuit breaker. However; there was a typographical error in the company MEL for spoilers 3 and 4 in that it called for the deactivation of SEC 3; which controlled spoilers 1 and 2. The MEL was programatically restricted until revision approvals were in place and the MEL card corrected.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Laptop Computer (performance; planning; etc.)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying direct to ZZZ I had an iPad drop off the side window and I bent down to pick it up. Unfortunately the screen cracked and I attempted to assess the damage as well as re-mount it to the window. As I did this; the aircraft (no autopilot) inadvertently descended into a cloud layer I'd had intentions of passing over (I was within VFR mins above it) and suddenly I was IMC. I had mountainous terrain below; so I couldn't immediately descend; I tried climbing back to 10;500 feet; but at that point was still in the cloud. The airplane being a single engine piston I didn't have extra power to climb much higher so I watched my map closely to ensure I was moving past terrain; then began a descent. I advised ATC because I wanted to be sure I was heard in case something happened (ATC can't talk with me where I was due to rad and radio limitations from terrain). I descended and noticed my windscreen was icing up; and the wings began accumulate icing also. I continued descent until under the cloud layer and was able to safely land aircraft without incident.




Synopsis: Piper pilot reported encountering IMC during VFR flight in mountainous location.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Bell 407 helicopter was inducted to the ZZZ Repair Station for two cracks located on the Right-hand (RH) fuselage. After removal of the paint and filler material it was determined there was no actual structural damage in either locations. The Maintenance Manual (M/M) states that the action taken for this is to polish out and seal with Resin C-363. I mixed up the resin and applied the resin to the bare spots and then applied a heat lamp to this area to speed up the process without referring to the Manual. I was also working with Purchasing Department at the time with some duplicate Maintenance Tracking issues. I checked the resin every few minutes and the last time I looked; the paint was starting to discolor. I removed heat and began the damage evaluation of the area; this is still ongoing at this time. This event occurred from not performing the correct process per the Maintenance Manual (M/M) and using the wrong type of equipment.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Supervisor reports he did not follow the correct process in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) when he attempted to repair two fuselage cracks on a Bell 407 helicopter.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot in Command (PIC) non flying pilot.  We were on the descent into Midway airport.  We were cleared from the FL's to 4;00 MSL with an altimeter setting of 30.36.  Reaching 4;000 we were questioned about our altitude; something about check your Mode C and altitude.  I stated we were level at 4;000 MSL; ATC stated they showed us at 3;000. I asked her to confirm the altimeter setting and was given a new setting of 29.44. At this point I'd guess we were 40 miles from the airport.Obviously we flew through a weather front and I should have picked up on the setting that we were given was significantly different from the destination.


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


Synopsis: A DA2000 flight crew reported descending to 3;000 feet AGL 40 miles from the airport when they were over one inch off in their altimeter setting.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: [Inadvertent flight] into IMC [while on] descent into VFR conditions. ADS-B on the plane had VFR conditions. Foreflight had VFR conditions. NOAA had VFR conditions. It wasn't for about 5 miles or so.




Synopsis: Lancair pilot; descending out of 17;500 FT VFR reports encountering IMC while on board equipment (ADS-B; Foreflight and NOAA) indicated VMC should prevail.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Booster Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The right center fuel pump had been deferred. After running the APU on the left center fuel pump; we noticed that the low pressure light was illuminated indicating a possible failure of the left center fuel pump. I notified maintenance; maintenance control; and flight control; and the decision was made to defer both center fuel pumps. We noticed that the center fuel tank contained 1;260 pounds (more than the 1;000 pound limit;) and voiced concerns about the legality of the deferral. Maintenance Control posited that the 1;000 limit did not apply as the fuel in the wing tanks was 'scheduled' to be full. I agreed that we were starting out with full wing tanks; but that the fuel 'schedule' would leave us without full wing tanks; with more than 1;000 pounds in the center tank in apparent violation of the limitation - 'Number Main tanks 1 and 2 must be scheduled to be full if center tank contains more than 1;000 lbs of fuel.' The Chief Pilot was brought into the conversation; and he agreed with the interpretation of Maintenance Control. The salient question is what is the definition of 'scheduled;' and while I agreed at the time; upon further consideration; I am still uncertain about its meaning.The use of the term 'scheduled;' is confusing at best. Is the intention to allow a takeoff if the wing tanks are full at block out; or is the term 'scheduled;' meant to include the scheduled fuel burn?The limitation; and the [dispatch terminology]; should be clear about the intent and execution of the operation under these conditions.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported confusion when the term 'scheduled' was used in relation to the amount of fuel required with the center tank fuel pumps being placed on MEL.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OSH.Airport, WI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D OSH
ATC / advisory: Tower OSH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing OSH; I was cleared for takeoff off. I made the early left turnout as directed by the NOTAM for a VFR departure and began the climb to 1300' and the turn to what I thought was the correct heading as per the NOTAM. I turned to a heading of 130. It wasn't until I neared the seaplane area that I realized my error and that I should have flown a heading of 150.I did receive a pilots briefing and read my paper copy of the NOTAM. I also got ATIS prior to departure. When I began my turn to the heading of 130 I was confident I was going the correct direction. I must have misread the NOTAM.From this point forward I will reread the pertinent details of the NOTAM again to myself immediately prior to departure. A visible note of the heading and altitude would have prevented my mistake.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported not flying the correct heading during takeoff from OSH; realized the error and corrected to the right heading.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NLC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Instructor; Single Pilot
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During IMC climb from FL200 to FL300; student wingman lost sight and fell into trail from his instructor lead. He used his radar to maintain separation with his lead; however; due to poor air work; he allowed himself to get slow and his separation continued to open. Eventually his separation grew as great as 24 miles and his altitude was 5;000 feet below his lead. He was not squawking and did not inform his lead or Oakland Center of the deviation. When the flight lead was given a descent to 16;000 feet; the wingman notified his lead of the error. The flight lead directed the wingman to descend VMC expeditiously to clear out of Class A airspace; while using his air-to-air radar to clear his flight path. The flight rejoined VFR at 16;500 feet. No errors were committed by ATC.




Synopsis: FA-18 Instructor reports his student wingman losing sight of lead in IMC and falling well back and below; in Class A airspace; without advising lead; ATC or squawking altitude.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout passing FL180 the elevator control became unusually stiff as if the autopilot was engaged. I clicked the A/P disconnect switch; no change. I notified the First Officer and had him try his yoke; and he agreed that it did not feel normal. The pitch trim operated normally. I requested a level-off at FL220 and consulted the QRH; followed by checking the weather conditions at several other airports. We determined that with a control problem it would be best to land at an airport with VFR conditions and a long runway into the wind. All airports other than ZZZ1 had IFR weather or gusty winds at the time. We declared an emergency with Center and were cleared direct ZZZ1. We asked the Controller to notify Dispatch for us which he agreed to do. Descended towards ZZZ1 and completed a visual approach to Runway 10 with a long final. The stiffness of the pitch control remained through landing. They offered the safety equipment to standby and we accepted; and after an uneventful landing the ARFF chief saw nothing obviously wrong. I taxied to the gate where we were debriefed by Maintenance.


Second narrative: [No additional information contained in this report.]


Synopsis: An MD-82 flight crew experienced an unusually stiff elevator control during climb; and determined that the problem did not include the autopilot or the electric trim system. An emergency was declared and the aircraft was diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLE.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SLE
ATC / advisory: Tower SLE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown
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: An unsafe situation now exists because of the solution of the FAA to the near miss as the result of opposite direction traffic in Washington. They issued a blanket directive for all towers in the U.S. prohibiting any opposite direction arrivals or departures at any tower airports regardless of conditions. I was denied an ILS or RNAV approach to Runway 31 in Salem by Seattle Center and Salem Tower when the weather was near minimums for the Back Course 13 because of this ridiculous opposite direction traffic rule. I almost missed the approach because of this rule when the ILS or RNAV to 31 would have very easy to complete. I hope the FAA can take another look at this so called solution which may apply to high density airports but is totally irrelevant at small low traffic airports with precision approaches in only one direction.




Synopsis: C90 pilot requesting an opposite direction approach due to the recent FAA policy prohibiting same; indicated the policy was irrelevant a low density airports especially considering that many airports only have precision approach procedures in one direction.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was testing the live streaming video using my personal hobby drone. Post proof of concept meeting we had a follow-up with fight services where I was advised of Part 107 regulations. I was unaware of the requirements outlined in Part 107 and unaware of the airspace proximity to ZZZ.  During my test flight the drone stayed in low altitude and did not leave line of sight. During the setup and test of this drone no aircraft were visibly present. I have been given the link to the regulations that I was unaware of and will research all unmanned and manned flight regulations for that area prior to any future flights. Its unfortunate that this information is not listed in the hobby level of these aircraft. This gives me the option to improve my knowledge moving forward.




Synopsis: UAV pilot reported being unaware of airspace regulations while conducting a flight nearby an airport.