elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight attendants experiencing fatigue from extended work hours and additional duties due to change in flight schedules and practices since the onset of COVID-19. On [date] at XA15 Zulu (Z) flight attendants reported for work. At XC15Z flight attendants worked first leg. At XH15Z flight attendants worked a second flight. While on the ground; flight attendants provided water services as well as any additional service requested by passengers (beverages; coffee; snacks). At XK55Z flight attendants worked a third flight. During this flight; flight attendants confirmed with each other how such a long work day without breaks is causing them to have symptoms of fatigue. Flight attendants are currently unable to take breaks due to passengers staying onboard the aircraft on ground stops. Flight attendants are constantly going back and forth in the aisles serving various beverage requests throughout the ground time as there is no standard protocol for service on ground stops. This results in an increase of flight attendant time in the aisles during COVID-19. The flight to final destination arrived at XS20Z. Flight attendants worked over 18 hours and were given only one break at least 13 hours into their shift that was approximately 90 minutes long. Flight attendants confirmed the length of the day; along with the increased duties during ground stops; causes them to feel that toward the end of the shift they are not able to think clearly which could result in confusion or poor judgement if having to handle an emergency situation. Flight attendants agreed writing a report should be done to address our safety concerns over working such long shifts.Flight attendants agreed providing a layover among one of the stops between the originating flight; and the last flight of the day; would decrease the work hours to a reasonable duty day. In this case; ZZZ might be a reasonable layover.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported experiencing fatigue from extended work hours and additional duties due to change in flight schedules in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were conducting a ground reposition from the hangar; to the terminal. We made three traffic advisories prior to crossing the two runways. No other traffic advisories were heard on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). We were taxiing southbound on Alpha and made another advisory that we were crossing Runway XX and taxiing down Runway YY to the terminal. No other traffic was observed other than a company aircraft that was following us out of the hangar. While approaching the hold short line; I looked left two times while the First Officer cleared the right side of the aircraft. I proceeded to turn on our landing lights; anti-collision lights; and ice lights as we crossed the first hold short line for the runway. Approaching the hold bar for the second runway; I looked left again to clear traffic while the First Officer cleared the right. At this point we had still not heard any radio communications other than the company aircraft that was following us. While in the middle of crossing Runway XX; I saw an aircraft turn on their landing light while on the departure roll for Runway XX. This aircraft was coming straight at us with what appeared to be no intention of stopping. At this point it was too late for us to stop as we were clearing the runway and that would have done more harm than good. I advanced the power to expedite the clearing process as the aircraft rotated right behind our tail. We continued to the terminal and still never heard any radio communications from that aircraft. There were no passengers on the aircraft and this event did not cause any physical damage to our aircraft or anyone of the 3 crew members on board.




Synopsis: During an early morning taxi from the hangar to the terminal; prior to the Tower being open; the pilots of a Saab 340 observed another aircraft takeoff as they were crossing the runway. They never heard any communication from the departing flight crew during taxi; takeoff; or climb.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During roll out after landing; nose gear failed. Nose abruptly dropped causing aircraft to pitch over and stand on the spinner. Propeller struck the ground. Left wing leading edge and wingtip damaged. Van's aircraft just came out with a different design for the nose gear; there are also some after-market modifications that could be a better design.




Synopsis: RV6 pilot reported nose gear failure on landing.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure as we completed the before start checklist; noticed the fuel value (23K) on the Fuel Service Form (FSF) was 1;000 less than on the most current release 1 (24K) for our planned gate. ACARS sent to Dispatch to confirm we were still on release 1. Response back was yes; and he did not lower our fuel or trim ferry fuel. After calling to speak with Load Planning (LP) supervisor I discovered LP did lower the fuel based on preventing bumping bags or people. Concern is that LP adjusted the amount of ferry fuel without coordinating with Captain or Dispatcher. Although I realize LP has the authority to lower Ferry fuel; I believe they reduced it more than permissible by reducing it to 21;800 + 437 for taxi = 22;237 planned gate. Substantially lower than the 24.0 that the Dispatch and I agreed on. According to FOM; LP cannot reduce Ferry below 75 minutes endurance. They effectively trimmed our ferry by 1;763 LBS which was substantially more than the 12 minutes they are permitted. We did coordinate with Dispatch before takeoff to ensure we had a correct release.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported discovering during the Before Start Checklist that the fuel load was 1;000 pounds less than their release. Research revealed that Load Planning made the change on their own to accommodate more passengers and cargo.
Date: 201604
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring performing Check Airman duties with a First Officer (FO) performing pilot flying duties during his line training leg. Flight was routine. We discussed landing issues/terrain during cruise; and checked FOM for any applicable restrictions. Only FOM restriction that I could find was 'No autoland'. Flap 25 landing at 179 tons (ILS in VMC) with appropriate wind additive for headwind was planned. Landing was not smooth; but I did not consider it to be hard.On post-flight inspection; the right inboard trailing edge flap was found to be not fully retracted; and there was damage to one of the associated flap track fairings/canoes. Flaps had been selected to the up position after landing; and EICAS showed them fully retracted. Cockpit voice recorder was then pulled and Systems Control; Management Duty Pilot and Maintenance Control were informed of aircraft damage.In the distant past; I believe there was a procedure for the pilot monitoring to set a different barometer minimums bug to then have him make a callout to help compensate for the lack of radio altitude callouts? This might have been helpful to the pilot flying. In reality; the new First Officer undergoing training would have benefitted from some more recent flying experience or a simulator refresher prior to starting line training. In the future; I will delay flap retraction on any landing that is firmer than normal; as this may have prevented some aircraft damage.




Synopsis: B747-400 Check Airman described a hard landing by a new First Officer; receiving initial line training; that resulted in damage to one of the flap track fairings for the right inboard trailing edge flap.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
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: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Airport and pattern was in slight chaos; construction on the taxiways had 5 airplanes holding for take off with lots of aircraft in the pattern. ATC was moving fast with quick instructions. I was told to taxi onto runway and be ready to go. He had just released what I think was a training C-172; he then released me. I quickly lost sight of aircraft in front. I was departing the pattern to the east and we both were going to a certain point in the pattern. I thought the pattern aircraft had already turned downwind and I turned crosswind and was climbing at Vy and saw the pattern aircraft pass under me. I don't think he saw me. I did not need take any evasive action as I was a lot higher than he was.ATC came on the radio and asked if I had him in sight; I said yes and then ATC wanted to know if I was climbing and I said yes. No further transmissions were addressed to me and I left the pattern.The radio was nothing but non-stop radio calls; to and from the Tower by all the other aircraft. There were two tower operators working the same audio channel; maybe a training situation. I lost my departing traffic until I turned crosswind. I should have stayed on the upwind heading until I found the pattern traffic but I was getting very close to San Carlos airspace and I could [not] get an word in edge-wise to ask where my traffic was.I will be much more vigilant at this airport when it is so busy.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft while departing PAO.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AND.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF AND
Second aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was flying a C-182 with two others on an Orientation Ride. We announced our intentions to depart Runway 5 to the northeast on CTAF. We took the runway and; as we accelerated to rotation speed; spotted a Piper Saratoga coming at us head-on; approximately 1;000 FT in front; and closing. We aborted our takeoff; moved from centerline to the right side of the runway; braked and stopped prior to the Saratoga passing. Saratoga also saw us; and we had plenty of room to pass each other on the runway; both airplanes stopped or slowed significantly. I called him on CTAF and; after a few seconds; he answered and asked us if we heard his transmission before his takeoff. We did not. We inquired about CTAF and he stated he called on the Unicom frequency; that the CTAF frequency was being utilized by Anderson Radio; and that the Unicom should be used. He told us to check the facilities directory to find the correct frequency to use (referring to Unicom). We subsequently departed and monitored 123.6; and he then switched over to 123.6. A contributing factor was that Anderson Radio was talking on 122.0 or 122.2 to other aircraft in the air; but was also broadcasting on 123.6. This took quite a bit of time out of the CTAF frequency and I believe this confused the Saratoga pilot; causing him to utilize the Unicom frequency to broadcast his takeoff intentions. We both saw each other prior to rotation and a near miss/collision was avoided. My two passengers were concerned; but not fearful; as we avoided an incident.




Synopsis: A C-182 and a Piper Saratoga; departing AND on the same uncontrolled runway but in opposite directions rejected their takeoffs to avoid a collision. They later determined one was transmitting intentions on the published CTAF frequency and the other on the published Unicom frequency.
Date: 201701
Aircraft: A321
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 10 minutes into boarding Captain called me into flight deck to confirm odor from fumes. Strong odor was detected in flight deck as well as in back section of cabin. Most passengers were commenting and held things to their noses. Captain immediately requested boarding to cease and all passengers with carry bags and crew to deplane. Two Flight Attendants (FA) experienced headaches; another felt funny and I had continuous coughing. Other FA symptoms remained for a while; my coughing started up again when I re-entered aircraft an hour later to retrieve my bags.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported a strong odor in the aircraft during boarding. When many passengers and cabin crew members began to feel ill; the Captain decided to have the passengers exit the aircraft.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were departing ORD in the afternoon; I was the pilot flying from the right seat in the Caravan. We were given initial vectors for the climb to join the ORD 5 departure. Once on the runway we verified the Captain's side HSI; my DG; and the Mag compass were all matching up; and were displaying runway heading. Everything looked fine at this point. In the climb; we were told to maintain a heading of 150. I turned to that heading as displayed on both my and the Captain's DG. Departure advised us we were tracking closer to 210; and assigned us a heading of 240. Once rolling out on the heading of 240; we were again advised we were off by about 40 degrees. We checked against the Mag compass and found that the Captain's side DG had 'stuck' and was not slaved to the compass anymore. Since I am to set my DG to the Captain's side DG; we ended up being off on heading by a margin of 40-60 degrees for a good 10 minutes. No traffic conflicts were given to us; nor did we get any conflicts on TCAS. The Controller was helpful and did not seem to have an issue with what happened. We then reset both my DG and the Captain's HSI to the compass manually; and it appeared to function normally from there all the way to destination. Due to not catching the stuck HSI on the Captain's side we were off on heading by 40-60 degrees during a departure out of Chicago's Class B; and did so unintentionally. I have recommended that all crewmembers now verify the compass heading with the HSI and DG upon the initial rollout from the first vector/segment on departures.




Synopsis: C208 First Officer reports HSI/DG's 'sticking' during departure from ORD resulting in in a track deviation of 40 degrees initially.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: JAX.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At departure time after the forward entryway door and cockpit door was closed and just as we were about to call for push back clearance; the flight attendant called the cockpit and advised us that they had a passenger that would not comply with flight attendant instructions (he refused to stow his tray table); was making threatening gestures to the passengers; and wanted to 'see what we would do' if he did not comply. I gestured to have the gate agent bring the jet bridge back to the airplane and apprised him of the situation and that I wanted law enforcement to remove the passenger. The passenger initially refused to comply with law enforcement instructions; was then handcuffed; and removed from the airplane.One law enforcement officer told me that he appeared intoxicated. I was later told that there was an off duty law enforcement officer that witnessed the situation. I was also told after he was removed that other passengers stated that he was making threatening gestures and statements while in the gate area and while boarding. The flight attendants acted very professionally remained calm and did an outstanding job.


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


Synopsis: An air carrier Captain and First Officer reported a non-compliant passenger was removed from their aircraft in JAX.