elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flying a skydiving mission; the pilot side aircraft window departed the C182 at altitude. When the passenger side door was opened (modified for skydiving operations); I believe the rapid pressure differential or airflow caused the pilot's side window frame to be pulled into the slipstream. Given the rapid opening of the pilot side window the hinges snapped and the window departed the airframe. It is believed the window landed in a forested area. In the future; I will be sure to hold the latch to the window when the cabin door is opened at altitude for skydive operations.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported the pilot side window departed the aircraft in flight when the side door was opened for skydive operations.
Date: 202006
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Aircraft Marshalling
Reporter organization: Air Carrier

Narrative: After several tows ramp closed due to lightning.  Myself and my partner moved from SuperTug to PAATS (Park At Anytime) due to lightning closing the field.  Upon being assigned to PAATS I promptly noticed [aircraft] red tags due to PAATS lights (stop lights on top of truck).  I also noticed that the flag pole was damaged and would not allow for me to fly the flag.  Upon doing the user check which was not previously done even though it was used to park an aircraft previously.  I did confirm that the PAATS lights did in fact freeze up intermittently. After starting the rotation around the terminal with strobes siren and frozen amber light clearing the rest of the personnel from the ramp (did not get the all call over radio).  While doing so I notified Supervisor on duty of the issue and declined parking until I could ensure ramp was clear of personnel.  Additionally;  I voiced my concern with the lights and was instructed to verbally park via air to ground.  This is not a standard procedure.  Once I picked up my partner and declared ready to park I reset the lights for the 3rd time I attempted to make contact and was unable.  Operations still does not seem to be on the same page and give holding aircraft our frequency.  Once contact established PIC was notified of light issues would be parked short and verbal would be the fall back and if any steady light for more than 2 seconds should be questioned.Additionally; due to COVID the team is staffed short and split between two break rooms.  Giving little time to disinfect the cab as previous crew was from a separate break room.In summary.  Ground Support Equipment only one of two PAATS available at this time.  Neither fully equipped with lights or sirens.  COVID precautions not adhered to (mixing break rooms).  Lighter schedule necessitating more tows forcing crews to perform multiple tasks working light due to COVID precautions.  Training of back up procedures in the event of inop lights/sirens/radio.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported problems associated with clearing the ramp during a lightning storm and while parking aircraft.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Decathlon 8KCAB
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was an aerobatic instructional flight. The plan was to remain VMC and at or above 1;500 ft at all times. Aerobatic maneuvers were entered at 2;000-2;500 ft to maintain a 1;500 ft floor. During a half Cuban 8; with the instructor (myself) at the controls; I inadvertently entered an inverted spin at the top of the maneuver. I recovered at about 700 ft AGL.On the upline of the entry; I heard the stall horn go off. I eased off a bit and the aircraft went over the top fine. I was uncoordinated in my roll; and entered the spin. I need to remember that loaded maneuvers increase stall speed and impart a yaw -hence a spin. I recovered using the Meigs-Bueller method (throttle-Idle; hands off) as I couldn't tell which way we were spinning from the back seat of the Decathlon.




Synopsis: An American Champion Decathlon pilot reported inadvertently entering a spin condition while performing aerobatic maneuvers. A successful spin recovery was accomplished.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While flying the Stadium Visual Approach to Runway 29 at Newark Liberty Airport as Pilot Flying; I saw a white squarish object pass off the lower right side of the aircraft in my peripheral vision. I asked the co-pilot what that had been and he replied it had been a drone. We were at approximately 1000 feet in a descending right turn between the fixes SLIMR and CHUMR.  I would estimate the drone had passed underneath the right wing at less than 100 feet separation but far enough away to feel reasonably confident that it had not struck the airplane. The co-pilot agreed and then alerted Newark Tower of the presence of the drone on final approach so that they could pass this information on to the succeeding aircraft on approach. They requested that after landing we provide them with any additional description we could; which we did with Ground Control after clearing the runway and beginning our initial taxi to the gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew had a near miss with a UAS while on a visual approach.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a Leading Edge Flap Transit light with an overhead annunciator of slat 8. Following the QRH; we eventually accelerated and the light extinguished. We proceeded to RNO as planned. On approach to RNO after selecting flaps 30 the transit light and slat 8 light again illuminated. I had some terrain concerns as we were wide and long from the field and flying directly over a hilltop on approach to 16R. On the First Officer's (FO) previous leg; he concerned me a bit with an approach involving terrain avoidance. I'm afraid I let this concern overshadow my decisions going into RNO.The winds in RNO were gusting up to 31 knots and we were on a long straight-in. I got the QRH and went to the appropriate page. I was reading it as he continued the approach. Frankly; I was reading it faster than I should have and completely missed the flaps 15 requirement to land. It was then I heard 'AIRSPEED LOW.' I looked up to see the airspeed in the yellow band but he was correcting. We were still several miles from the runway but had now gone very high on the approach. Rather than reject the approach to a missed approach; I talked to him to help him get back to the glideslope. By 1;000 feet the aircraft was stable. The FO flew a flawless approach and landed without incident.On my layover I was reviewing the procedures for landing with Leading Edge Flaps Transit when I realized MY mistake. I called the FO and discussed what we had done and what we were supposed to have done.


Second narrative: I was the pilot flying. The flap transit light illuminated when configuring for landing. Captain reviewed the QRH but missed the flaps 15 requirement. Consider a go-around when encountering a non-critical malfunction on final.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experiences a leading edge flap transit light during approach to RNO. QRH procedures are examined but the requirement for a flaps 15 landing is overlooked. During this time the First Officer gets high and slow requiring the Captain to offer assistance. A normal landing ensues.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X LH #1 OB Slat Actuator torque tube fell off. While performing a slat actuator remove and replace job for Aircraft X at wing station 164.00 for the left #1 outboard slat actuator; I thought that I aligned the torque tube hole with the actuator shaft hole; I continued to secure the actuator to the aircraft thinking that everything was correct; I have done this job several times beforehand and was comfortable doing the job; obviously I was mistaken and did not fully seat the torque tube completely on the actuator shaft. I went to slide the bolt in through the hole of the torque tube thinking that it was attached to the actuator. My mistake caused the torque tube to come off of the actuator shaft. Was reported that pilots could not retract the slats and flaps after landing. This was an honest mistake on my part. There was no environmental distractions to take my mind off the job; I was not pressed for time; did not rush the job; and it was an easy/slow night at the hanger.




Synopsis: Technician reported incorrectly installing leading edge slat actuator torque tube; causing flaps and slats to be  unable to retract.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We picked up this aircraft; boarded; and we had just put our bags away. No pre-flight checks had been done; and passengers were already at the boarding door. I explained that no passengers could board until all safety checks had been completed. I noticed gate personnel to be unhappy with this but completed all pre-flight safety checks and then permitted passengers to board. During the boarding I was attending first class; hanging coats; and serving pre-departure drinks. I held my passenger boarding line for a few minutes; then continued boarding; this process happened twice; where I held my boarding so first class could be attended. I also had two FC passengers board late; and I was helping to get their bags in the overhead bin. The Manager; walked on board and demanded to know what I was doing. I explained I was helping FC passengers get situated with bags and hanging coats. He screamed at me in the cabin; to stop; and get this plane boarded. I told him I was; but I have a responsibility to service First Class. He demanded; I 'stop that service and to board this plane; now!' and shouted he wanted my name. I saw his anger; I gave him my name; and stopped any further service to first class. I am concerned with this hostile behavior from the gate. They want us to board planes without doing our safety checks and think they can walk onboard and tell us our job responsibility. I feel this is a breach of position. This incident caused me a lot of stress and embarrassment; as I was reprimanded by the manager in front of my passengers.I think gate personnel should never be on-board; except for a brief period of time which may involve paperwork to complete the flight. I don't think gate personnel should ever be allowed to cross over into flight attendant duties of procedure.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Flight Attendant reported being reprimanded by a Station Manager for holding up the boarding process to attend to first class passengers.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on the WATSN 3 Arrival headed into ORD. We were given a clearance to cross HULLS at 12;000'. We descended and were about 10 miles south of HULLS when we leveled off at 12000'. At around the same time; ATC issued a traffic advisory to us and a Citation that was at our 2 o'clock and approximately 7 miles. We both called each other in sight; and then ATC asked the Citation if he could maintain visual separation and climb through our altitude. At this point; the Citation said 'yes' and started a climb. We immediately got a TA; followed by a Resolution Advisory (RA). We climbed per the TCAS instructions to about 12;900'; and then descended back down to our assigned altitude of 12;000'. We looked at our TCAS at 12;900'; and the Citation was less than a mile behind us; -800 below us. The First Officer could see the Citation right outside the window; and could tell he was slightly behind us.I don't think we were ever in immediate danger; but feel as if the visual climb was a pretty odd clearance in such close proximity to an arriving aircraft.The Controller's response to our climb was '[The Citation] had a clearance to climb through your altitude maintaining visual separation.'The [Citation's] response was 'we weren't close at all.'Our TCAS said we were close enough.Although we had the aircraft in sight; we elected to follow the TCAS RA guidance for two reasons. 1) Because that's what we are trained to do. 2) The way the Citation was heading towards us; it was very difficult to see which way the airplane was moving; as it was coming right for us.




Synopsis: Regional Jet Captain reported responding to a TCAS RA climb command while descending into ORD when a Citation climbing VFR triggered the conflict alert.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
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: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise ECAM: R WINDOW HEAT INOP.  Window heat controller malfunctioned developing large single crack in outer layer of pane.  Completed ECAM actions.  Approximately 2 minutes later right window cracked completely.  Followed non-ECAM abnormal procedure (windshield crack).  Conferred with Dispatch and the decision was made to divert to a nearby airport due to enroute forecast icing conditions.  Descended to lower altitude to reduce landing weight; but encountered turbulence.  Completed windshield crack procedure prior to landing and followed overweight landing procedures as a precaution (FMGC predicted the landing weight within limits; but may have been inaccurate due to SID).  Complied with international divert procedures upon arrival at gate.  Repositioned aircraft to domestic gate after clearing customs.  Determined crew needed to enter rest after confirming with Maintenance Control that no immediate fix was possible and Dispatch had no options for replacement aircraft.  Calculated supplemental rest requirements and coordinated with crew planning for hotel assignment. I would suggest more accurate FMGC fuel prediction would aid crews in determining forecast landing weight quickly to avoid the potential for landing overweight.




Synopsis: An A320 ECAM alerted R WINDOW HEAT INOP accompanied by a large single crack which minutes later developed into a completely cracked window; so the flight diverted to a nearby airport to avoid enroute weather.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at 4;500 FT cruise; heading north northwest; using Approach radar services; engine began cutting in and out. Normal emergency checks failed to solve problem. After about 45 seconds; contacted Approach and advised of problem. They directed me to turn north to a nearby airport and continue reporting. Continued to lose altitude; advised Approach I could go into lake and not make that airport. At approximately 2;000 FT engine regained power. [I] was able to make safe landing; so advised Approach. At the airport; Local Mechanic examined plane and determined I must have had some water in the system. Fuel system; checked clear and numerous run-ups showed no issues.




Synopsis: A C150 pilot declared an emergency and diverted after his engine lost power at cruise but power recovered during descent. A Mechanic believed water in the fuel was the problem.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PIT.Tower, PA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PIT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X landed on runway 32. The aircraft made a right turn at the end of the runway. I was training a developmental at the time who taxied the aircraft to his hangar using a closed taxiway to do so. The aircraft proceeded to the hangar without incident; however there were 2 airport authority vehicles leaving the area as the airplane approached and questioned what he was doing.Once again the airport authority had no cones; markings; or barriers to indicate to aircraft that a taxiway or in some cases a runway is closed. This has happened numerous times now and is becoming a recurring theme. Air traffic has repeatedly asked for cones or markings of some kind and it continues to be ignored.




Synopsis: PIT Tower Controller reported that an aircraft taxied on a closed taxiway where there were no closure markings.