elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SSI.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SSI
ATC / advisory: CTAF SSI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Here are the details of a local flight I experienced from SSI. I am an instrument rated pilot. Yesterday I went up for a short flight and noticed an airplane on ADS-B traffic that appeared to be in the pattern at BQK. One thing that caught my eye beside being in the pattern was the aircraft was showing 'VFR' and not the tail number. As I headed west toward the race track I kept an eye on the traffic through ADS-B. When returning I noticed the traffic was still in the BQK area so I screen captured it so I could figure out why I was seeing VFR and not a tail number.I began announcing on SSI CTAF being 10 miles out. Descending I announce again at 6 miles out. Now we're at the same altitude on a collision course. I announced again on SSI CTAF but did not get any response. I was trying to spot the aircraft. However it was heading toward me at the same altitude so the sight picture was small. I was unable to spot the aircraft so I pulled up to gain altitude. As I pulled up I saw Aircraft Y pass approximately 100 ft. in front of me and slightly below. Aircraft Y did not take any visible action that I saw. We both were definitely within the Class E airspace of SSI.




Synopsis: A Pilot approaching to land at a non towered airport reported an NMAC.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 3R7.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G 3R7
ATC / advisory: CTAF 3R7
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
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; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cancelled IFR with Lake Charles approach and continued visually into 3R7. Entered the left downwind and saw an aircraft holding short of runway 26. Made the appropriate downwind radio call. Made a turn to base and made the appropriate radio call. Turned final and called final on the radio. When on short final the aircraft holding short entered runway 26 for takeoff. We did a go around on the right side. The aircraft who entered the runway continued his take off and proceeded north. We entered a right downwind and landed. An [aircraft] landing Runway 35 witnessed it; that pilot and I were in radio communications during pattern for our respective runways. The aircraft which was the cause of the incident never made a radio call.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported another aircraft entered the runway without CTAF announcement; causing a ground conflict.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: A319
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 Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Parked at gate with number one engine running; number two shutdown. While waiting for external power to be hooked up; APU inop. Ground worker walked behind running number one engine and was blown [to the ground] and suffered injuries.Cause:Not paying attention; distraction?


Second narrative: We just arrived at the gate. The Captain had the brake set and the number 1 engine running. We were waiting for ground power. We had an MEL to the APU. Upon my walk around I was told by a ramper that another ramper had walked right behind the running engine. We did not see it happen.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported they were advised of an injury when a ramp employee walked behind a running engine while the aircraft was parked at the gate.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Military Facility ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a training flight; while in communication with [a military airfield]; I experienced a partial engine failure (power dropped from 2;000 RPM to 1;800 RPM upon application of full power). Attempts were made to apply carburetor heat; change tanks; and check magnetos with no change in engine status. I immediately diverted approximately 3 miles west to the nearest airport; which was [the military airfield]; declared an emergency so we could gain access to the military base; and landed without incident. Upon inspection it was determined the aircraft experienced carburetor ice apparently beyond the ability of the carburetor heat to eliminate. After paperwork at the facility to substantiate the need to land at the military base; a local Aircraft Mechanic inspected the aircraft and we decided to depart and return to our local Mechanic. The flight continued without incident and inspections are being made to determine carburetor ice was the most likely reason for the engine anomaly before the aircraft is returned to the flight line at the flight school.




Synopsis: A C172 Flight Instructor reported loss of power when carburetor heat apparently was unable to cope with the icing conditions. Aircraft diverted to a nearby military airfield.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Lead Flight Attendant called during cruise to report that a family of three; mother; father; and child were not complying with the company required mask policy. They had been told repeatedly to wear their masks. The child was said to be older than two. We notified Dispatch through ACARS and requested a CSR meet the flight. On arrival in ZZZ no CSR met the flight. The agent that met the flight had not been informed of the incident. A radio call to operations verified that no one in ZZZ was aware of the situation.This is the second occurrence in one month where a CSR was requested for a level 1 or level 2 incident and no CSR or additional support met the flight. Flight deck and in-flight crews are required to participate in threat level training; and in person recurrent training; every year. The trend of our company not supporting our crews with onboard incidents is alarming.




Synopsis: Captain reported CSR was not aware of the need for them to be present when aircraft landed due to a family not complying with face mask policy during flight.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y both had to be kept high and vectored away from unknown VFR traffic (Aircraft Z; reported via ADS-B). I attempted to transmit in the blind to Aircraft Z; however; I received no response. The VFR traffic crossed the outer fixes of both the 28R/28L localizer at PDX at 2;700; unverified. The presence of this VFR traffic caused 2 aircraft to be kept high and vectored around during critical phase of flight while descending on approach to PDX.The Class Charlie airspace needs extensions to protect the final approach courses. The fact that VFR aircraft are legal to cross through localizers at conflicting altitudes without being in radio communication with ATC is dangerous. An extension [protecting] the localizer out to the outer marker; surface to 5;000; 3 miles lateral on either side would greatly improve safety.




Synopsis: P80 Controller reported vectoring off course and delaying descent clearance for two aircraft on approach due to an unidentified VFR aircraft conflicting in the vicinity of the Initial Approach Fix.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff fuel 38.7 fuel 38.7 at cruise ECAM auto feed fault; set mode SEL man as per ECAM. XA58z noticed fuel imbalance of 2;880 fuel; left wing lower started cross-feed both left wing boost pumps off at XB04z imbalance increased to 4;060 LBS; decided to divert to ZZZ; declared emergency with Center. First Officer tried to contact Dispatch with ACARS and voice-no joy. I sent ACARS divert message to Dispatch. [I] planned 13;000 LBS overweight landing for ZZZ planned for fuel imbalance landing of 8;000 LBS uneventful app and landing. terminated emergency with ground XB49z. during entire flight could not access fuel from right or center tank. post flight fuel verification check within 400 LBS fuel at gate in ZZZ; left wing 4;220 center 11;940 right wing 12;340 both outboard wing tanks full. [I] had maintenance drip tanks at ZZZ left wing estimate 4;200 LBS right wing almost full.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]

Second callback: Reporter states that it took maintenance several days to discover what was causing the fuel to be used from the left tank only when it should have been used from the center tank only. It was ultimately discovered that an over pressure valve that connects the center tank to the left tank had failed open. This may have been due to an over pressure event during fueling and the valve did not properly close after the event. The result was that fuel from the left tank was draining into the center tank as fast as the center tank fuel was being consumed by the engines; giving the appearance that only left tank fuel was being used. Why right tank fuel could not be accessed remains a mystery.

Synopsis: A319 flight crew experiences an ECAM 'auto Feed Fault' at cruise altitude and selects manual mode per ECAM. Twenty three minutes later a fuel imbalance is noted and a crossfeed is set up with the low tank pumps turned off. The imbalance worsens and the crew elects to divert to the nearest suitable airport. Post flight reveals that all fuel consumed during the flight came from the left tank.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: E2/anti-ice fail EICAS Message; open inscription was no longer illuminated on anti-ice button associated with MEL and per MEL this should have been inhibited. We selected ice detection override to ALL per QRH. Next engine air inlet was not selected per QRH due to MEL and valve secured open by Maintenance per MEL. We contacted Dispatch via ACARS and stayed clear of icing as per the QRH procedure. While at FL230 got wing anti-ice fail EICAS message; not associated to the MEL. This time QRH directed us to cycle wing anti-ice which solved the problem. END QRH.We felt a bump in cabin pressure and observed an abnormal cabin pressure readout. Thinking this was part of MEL we started a decent to FL190. Around FL210 both FO (First Officer) and I feel signs of hypoxia and don mask and established communication and checking EICAS we see that cabin alt is climbing rapidly at which time we [notify ATC] and execute emergency descent procedure to 13;000 per ATC we request 10;000; during emergency decent we get cabin alt warning EICAS message; leveling at 10;000 feet cabin pressure is still in the red so we request 7;000 to lower the cabin alt. I make a PA announcement to calm passengers and continue to ZZZ where we landed and taxied to gate and met by Fire Rescue; Maintenance; and airport operations.Add a check of cabin pressure to QRH.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a pressurization failure at cruise altitude and signs of hypoxia on descent.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SDF
ATC / advisory: Tower SDF
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at 4;000 feet MSL and approximately 25 NM from the airport on a direct course to SLGRR when we were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 17L at SDF. The First Officer set the crossing altitude of 2;500 feet in the MCP window and started a descent. I was looking for a GA aircraft that was on a converging course to the same runway as ours. As we were leveling off; we received a low altitude call from ATC. We visually identified the towers ahead of our position and the First Officer initiated a climb to 3;000 feet to increase our separation to the towers. Once the towers were behind us; he resumed the descent to SLGRR and completed the approach without further issues.I should have kept a closer watch on the flight path during this approach. A further study of the approach chart shows the towers we saw were quite a bit higher than any others around them; but not the highest obstacle on the chart.  This was easily missed in our chart review.


Second narrative: Flight was on the FRIZN 5 RNAV Arrival into SDF. Arrival and approach were briefed expecting THUND transition to a visual approach with ILS 17L as backup. Approach Control cleared aircraft directly to SLGRR waypoint; which is the FAF for the ILS.  Aircraft had been cleared down to 3;000 feet MSL.Crew mentioned to Approach Control that the airport was in sight and were cleared for a visual approach. 2;500 feet MSL was set into the altitude window to continue descent to FAF altitude. Crew then switched over to Tower and received landing clearance. Unbeknownst to crew; the flight path put the aircraft in the immediate vicinity of multiple radio towers ranging from 1;945 to 1;960 feet; which left only 500 feet of vertical clearance. At approximately the same time Pilot Monitoring saw the towers and mentioned them to Pilot Flying; crew received a call from Tower Controller stating that a low altitude alert was going off. Pilot Flying commenced climb to 3;000 feet to ensure 1;000 feet clearance margin. Remainder of approach was completed without incident.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a Low Altitude Alert from ATC due to towers close to the flight path of the aircraft.
Date: 201603
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver; Ramp
Human factors: 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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the pushback for [the] flight. We were early. I had the headset on; and could hear the pilots. All of a sudden; the plane rocked back an inch or two; jolting the pushback tractor. Luckily the jet bridge was pulled; the chocks were pulled; and our pushback was hooked up. I could hear the pilot instructing/teaching the first officer about the maneuver he just pulled. Something about him putting his foot on a pedal. After establishing contact with the flight deck; I challenged him on what he just did.Dialogue:ME: 'Are you guys doing some training up there?'Captain: 'Haha; yeah; why do you ask?'ME: 'Because you released the brakes without permission.'Captain: 'Oh; but I kept my foot on the pedal while I did it.'ME: 'Sure; then why did the plane rock back and inch or two? You guys are supposed to ask for permission otherwise I risk losing a finger pulling the chocks.'Captain: 'Ok boss.'Seeing as this Captain was conducting training on this flight; as well as breaking protocol in an unsafe manner; I feel this issue needs to be addressed. This type of behavior has been happening for a long time; and it certainly doesn't need to be perpetuated into the future. On time is great; getting pilots paid is great; but jeopardizing the safety of others and the safety of the aircraft is not.




Synopsis: Driver of a pushback tractor reported the Captain deviated from SOP when he released the brakes without coordination with ground personnel.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I had just landed. When I tried to go into reverse I was unable. I mentioned this to the Captain and he asked if the thrust levers were at idle. They must have just been off idle because after pulling on them I was able to get into reverse. During this time ATC asked us to exit left at Bravo and the Captain responded. Approaching 60 KTS I tried to exit reverse and was unable to. The Captain took the thrust levers and closed the reversers. By this time we were going past Bravo and exited at Alpha. During the taxi in Ground notified the Captain to call them and he was informed that a takeoff clearance had to be cancelled because we had missed Bravo. At the gate the Captain wrote up the right thrust reverser which had a light illuminated on the overhead panel.




Synopsis: When a B737-800 flight crew experienced difficulty both entering and exiting reverse thrust after landing they were unable to make the turnoff requested by the Tower. The Captain was asked to contact the Tower and; when he did so; was advised the Local Controller had had to cancel a takeoff clearance when they failed to exit where requested.