elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cirrus Vision SJ50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At about 900' after takeoff I received a double dong tone and sfd alt miscompare" yellow EICAS message followed by two more different miscompare EICAS messages and repeating dong tones. I was distracted with the tones and 3 scrolling EICAS messages while troubleshooting the EICAS messages.  While going to the checklist for the EICAS messages; I went through assigned altitude of 1500' to about 1750'. I had not turned on the autopilot yet because of my reviewing all the EICAS messages.  When I caught the altitude deviation I immediately descended to my assigned correct altitude but about 10 seconds later ATC assigned me to climb to 2000'.  There were no traffic conflicts.  Ended up being mud daubers had built nests in all 4 static ports. The material deposited by the insects was white and did not look abnormal on my preflight. Lesson is to always fly the plane first and to double check all static ports and other openings for bugs."




Synopsis: Cirrus Vision SJ50 pilot reported an altitude deviation while troubleshooting multiple EICAS messages.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E F11
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting OJT on STN/STV; we had just gotten the briefing. There was a small single piston holding south of KIZER at 3;000 FT and the previous controller had climbed a twin turboprop to 3;000 FT and turned on the north downwind for the ILS 9L. This created a conflict between the twin turboprop and single piston; I pointed this out immediately to my trainee. The trainee turned the aircraft but waited to descend. This caused them to come closer than 3 miles. Well I teach my OJT's not climb to 3;000 FT on the downwind if holding at this holding fix. If you get this handed to you it may take precise vectors to avoid the holder and possible traffic on the ILS. You can always have the single piston/holding traffic turn north to the fix early due to traffic. I've been told to give my trainee a long leash but in this case I've learned that leash was to long and I needed to take over.




Synopsis: F11 Controller providing OJT described a conflict event when the trainee was late in descending one of the aircraft involved.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ICL.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 9
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G X
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: On final approach to Runway 20 at ICL there are grain bins in the flight path with the red obstacle [light] burned out.  I have requested for weeks that it be fixed; but has not as of today.  On a night landing training flight; student was making adjustment for a wind change and drifted too close to the bins because he could not see them without the red light.  I as the instructor had to take immediate action to avoid collision with them when I noticed that the wind had drifted us too close to them.  I will continue to request that the light be fixed and have students fly an above glide slope on Runway 20 in the future.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported the aircraft flew close to an obstacle at night that did not have a red obstacle warning light during approach to ICL airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working LC3/4 combined at LC4; I had two CRJ's land Runway XXR and exit at Taxiway XX. An A319 then landed Runway XXR and was rolling out towards the second high speed exit; Taxiway XY. I informed the A319 that company traffic was on short final. I then attempted to stop the second CRJ short of Taxiway DY so that the A319 could exit the runway unimpeded. While talking to the CRJ; I realized that the A319 was not going to be off the runway in time and sent the A320 around. At the time I sent the A320 around; the aircraft was crossing the runway threshold. I then gave the A320 runway heading; a climb to 9 thousand; and handed him off the appropriate departure sector. In the future; I will give priority to the possible go-around situations and initiate the missed approach much sooner (before the landing threshold; when it is obvious that the operation will not work). It is also critical to 'paint a picture for each aircraft involved.' Advising the preceding aircraft to plan the first high speed exit and minimal time on the runway for traffic close in trail; and ensuring that the trail aircraft knows of the distance between the preceding aircraft and any speed overtakes.


Second narrative: Two sick leave hits for staffing; leaving only 7 CPCs for the shift. Normal would be 10; and won't approve leave below this. However; in the event of sick leave; OT will not be called and supervisors who are not proficient during normal traffic are forced to work. This was the case here. A Supervisor working due to staffing; no OT was attempted. Due to lack of proficiency; an A320 was sent around very late after crossing landing threshold with another aircraft on the runway. This was during normal arrival rush. If 10 is what we need for staffing; we should be calling fully proficient OT CPC's to replace them; and not try to save the budget by staffing with supervisors who do not work busy traffic.


Synopsis: Tower Controller described a very late go-around instruction noting his/her lack of timely instructions.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my preflight on this aircraft I usually check the oven just for checks; and surprisingly I found a blanket inside the oven; door was closed and got the attention of the other FA; and the Captain as well. Which gives me the idea that on the previous flight one of the flight attendants was warming up this blanket to keep themselves nice and warm. I would never expected to find such an item; specially a blanket inside the oven; it is super and extremely dangerous; very irresponsible and an unprofessional act; a serious subject for me to bring it up and to be investigated. I had to fill out this [report] to bring the attention for the safety department of [Company].  When it comes to safety issues and preventing a terrible tragedy to happen in the air; I personally would like to take action and the attention of this serious matter. I can't say exactly which of the flight attendants did this; or whoever did it; but a proper investigation about this incident would lead to whoever may have done this. To make sure that anyone do it again.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported finding a blanket in the oven during preflight.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working the Local 2 position; which entails working Runway 31L off-loaded departures and CBA (VFR/Helicopter Operation in the B). Local 1 is working Runway 4R/L. Aircraft X appears to be vectoring in for Runway 4L and checks in on my frequency; which is the wrong frequency as he should be with Local 1. I switch him to that frequency. He then appears to be disoriented and is overshooting the finals. He's now in conflict with Aircraft Y; an arrival for Runway 4R. Neither of them appear to be Local 1 or the Approach Controller. I double check on my frequency and they aren't on mine either. They finally come up on Local 1 and the Controller separates them both.I recommend that the Approach Controller ensures that aircraft are either established on course and are no longer a factor with other aircraft before switching frequencies because sometimes they go to the wrong frequencies or lose communication and can become a problem; so much so that it can create an accident.




Synopsis: JFK Tower Controller reported an aircraft was using the incorrect frequency during handoff; which resulted in a conflict with another aircraft.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was reviewing the logbook for a B737-800 aircraft; the First Officer returned to the cockpit from his walk around. He mentioned he saw speed tape along the leading edge of the right horizontal stabilizer. I noted that we only had a placard form for the speed tape in the right wheel well [for the] vapor barrier. I began a review of the aircraft damage log history. The first entry was for the damage to the right stabilizer in January 2011. The entry referenced that speed tape was applied to damaged area. No mention of follow-on inspection requirements. I called [our] B737 Technical support. After asking Technical support to pull-up the aircraft damage history items; I asked; if speed tape was applied; should there not be a logbook placard form in the logbook. Technician said he was going to have to enter a discrepancy item. I gave my cell phone over to the ZZZ Mechanic that was now present so he could get the item entered per Technical support. I insisted that since the item was originally addressed on January 2011 without any follow-up inspection; that we should at least re-inspect the condition of the Temporary Repair (TR). This aircraft flew over 16-months without any follow-up inspection to a Temporary Repair using speed tape. The logbook may not have been properly filled out at ZZZ1; where the original damage repair was made.




Synopsis: A Captain was informed by his First Officer that he saw speed tape along the leading edge of the right horizontal stabilizer during his walk around. The B737-800 aircraft had flown for 16-months without any follow-up inspection to a Temporary Repair (TR) using speed tape.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL350; auto flight on; we had an ECAM Yellow Hyd Low Level. We established PF/PM (Pilot Flying/ Pilot Monitoring) roles and completed the ECAM. Notified Dispatch via ACARS. Reviewed the QRH notes; and briefed the landing. We asked Dispatch to confirm our decision to land at [scheduled destination]; but never got a response. Possible ACARS lost message and we didn't have enough time to follow up. Sent a message to [Operations Control] that we had a Yellow Hyd failure. The ECAM had us shut off the Yellow Hyd System; and turn it back on on final. We evaluated our landing distance based upon the Yellow system not recovering; and verified we had a very safe margin with only one reverser and two spoilers per wing inop. I performed a brief with the flight attendants and advised them there was no reason to prepare for an evacuation. We turned the Yellow Engine pump back on when we dropped the gear. We had Approach Control give us an extended final to ensure our flaps would still deploy when operating at half rate. The Yellow Hyd system recovered with normal pressure and very low volume. We made an uneventful landing and exited the runway. Clearing the runway we stopped to allow for the [ramp] crew to complete a walk around safety check. When complete; we taxied to gate and waited until the ground crew verified the chocks were set before securing the number 1 engine; per the QRH notes. The Yellow Hyd pressure remained normal until shutdown; although the volume dropped to zero. On the post flight walk around we found the entire aircraft belly wet with dripping hydraulic fluid.Post flight I debriefed the event with my FO (First Officer) [and ground personnel]; all of whom responded perfectly.


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


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported receiving an ECAM for low fluid level in the Yellow hydraulic system.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a southbound departure from ZZZ I requested clearance from ZZZ2 Tower to transition west through the ZZZ2 Class D airspace. The controller approved my request with a midfield crossover restriction. She called [small jet] traffic 2 miles south of ZZZ3 at 3;000 feet. During her call she responded with an incorrect call sign. Subsequent to my initial response I visually acquired the [small jet]. By this point I had initiated a west bound turn and climb to higher altitude for my transition as I believed I was well within the ZZZ2 Class D and below the 3;000 foot floor of the Class B.The controller became excited and issued instructions to stop climb to 'XYY' and subsequent transmissions to 'YY'. This caused extreme confusion to me as to whom her instructions were directed. The airspace in the location near my westbound turn is complicated as there is overlapping design with different control and altitude jurisdictions. I use aircraft GPS navigation and EFB data for a visual presentation of airspace. While it is possible I penetrated Class B airspace it was purely unintentional. At one point the Tower controller stated 'you almost hit a [small jet']. I had visual contact with the small jet who was going to pass well behind my flight path. The complicated nature of the airspace design combined with the controller's tone and delivery of incorrect call sign contributed to an extremely confusing experience.




Synopsis: Single Engine Pilot reported a possible airspace violation and NMAC . The pilot cited the complicated airspace at this location and confusion with ATC instructions as contributing to the event.
Date: 201905
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: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flaring on final a slight wind shift occurred during the flare for landing causing the longitudinal axis of the aircraft to move to the left of the ground track and insufficient right rudder application to correct the change was applied. Side load was placed on the main gear and directional control was temporarily lost as nose wheel touched down. I took control of the aircraft as soon as I observed the loss of directional control from the pilot. The aircraft veered momentarily off the runway into the grass to the left of the runway and back onto the paved runway exit. No damage occurred to the aircraft; airport installations and no physical injuries occurred to the pilot or myself (instructor.)




Synopsis: C172 CFI reported taking control of the aircraft on following his student's loss of directional control after touchdown.