elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft came into contact with an unoccupied parked aircraft while taxiing; but there were no injuries and to the best of my knowledge no substantial damage.




Synopsis: Single-piloted Chancellor pilot reported impacting a parked aircraft while taxiing.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: RPM/N1/N2/Etc Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Aircraft diverted into ZZZ with EPR mode fault. System showed engine 1 EPR mode fault with fault messages of P2 T2 SENS/HC/EEC1. TSM 73-XX-XX-XXX-XXX showed a P2 T2 sensor and a relay box as possible faulty Line Replaceable Unit. I looked up the part numbers for the sensor and relay box and gave those to our AOG people to see if they could find the parts in ZZZ. I think I wrote down the wrong part number for the sensor.




Synopsis: Technician reported ordering the wrong part for installation on an A321 aircraft.
Date: 202012
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA; Class G SNA
ATC / advisory: CTAF SNA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We had no operational issues whatsoever. This debrief is simply an observation. The SNA Tower closed for COVID exposure and SNA has become an uncontrolled field. The flight experience of the GA traffic that saturates that airspace is typically very beginner level and a Control Tower is essential. Uncontrolled field operations were nothing short of chaotic at that airport; and I really do see a potential for an accident to occur. Simply put; the pilots that are operating at that airport don't have the experience they need to merge with airline operations. The radio was saturated; there was confusion of who's going to take the runway next; a twin engine airplane decided to do a 360 to provide spacing while a commercial aircraft was 4 miles behind them on final.  A small aircraft almost took the runway with an aircraft on short final. I saw another small aircraft make left traffic for [Runway] 20R when the traffic pattern is only right.  In my professional opinion; I suggest that SNA be only an IFR only operation only during non-towered operations.  The amount of threats at that field are countless. Every pilot has to start somewhere and I'm sensitive to that; but a new small aircraft pilot practicing landings; turning an early base while an air carrier is on final (hypothetical example; that didn't happen); has no business in such a busy environment without a Tower Controller there to mitigate risk.Again; there was no event. This is an observation. Lack of traffic management is the factor in a potential disaster.If there is to be no tower at SNA; it needs to be commercial or IFR only operations.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported flying into an airport with the Tower closed due to COVID-19 and described the associated issues flying in the same environment with inexperienced general aviation pilots.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local 4 and had multiple departures for 34L and 34R. We also had sporadic arrivals to 34R even though we had a high volume of departures.  I had an aircraft on final to 34R with an aircraft waiting in position on 34R.  I didn't have enough space to get the departure out in from to the arrival so I sent the arrival around.  The ASDE-X warning alarmed as well.  Many factors led to this event.  I don't think we needed to be landing 34R.  There was plenty of space on either 35L or 35R to fit the 34R arrivals but they want to do the RNZ approach so they land 34R anyway.  In my opinion when we have that many departures we shouldn't be mixing in arrivals unless we absolutely have to.  Distractions in the Tower were another cause.  We had tours and extra people that aren't necessary to the operation.  Especially during a period of high volume and complexity. Even with all the people up in the Tower to help nobody caught the aircraft landing 34R being a conflict with the departure.  In the end though the fault is with me.  I should have used my arrival placard in my departure bay to remind me of the arrival like always do.  But for a multitude of reason; some among the ones states above; I didn't.  In the end I sent the Aircraft X around and held Aircraft Y in position until traffic wasn't a factor and then continued working. Less people in the Tower during periods of high volume and traffic.  Don't land on a runway that has heavy departures.  Open up a Cab Coordinator during time of heavy traffic volume and complexity.




Synopsis: DEN Local Controller reports sending aircraft around with aircraft in position; and lack of use of arrival placard for joint use runway.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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 function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at 33000 ft. as we were preparing for an approach briefing we received a 'L WSHLD HEAT' caution message. I asked the First Officer to keep flying the airplane and to take the radios while I ran the QRH. While running the QRH for L Windshield heat Caution we noticed a discolored line running vertically up the middle or the left windshield from the bottom to just past the mid height of the windshield. I looked closer and could see it was a small crack starting. I switched procedures and ran the QRH for non EICAS 'Window/Windshield (Arcing; Delaminated; Shatter; or Crack)' Per procedure I turned off left windshield heat; switched cabin pressure controller to manual; and began to climb the cabin pressure to lower delta P. As soon as the cabin began to climb the windshield shattered with a loud bang.I advised the First Officer we needed to descend as a precaution and he coordinated with ATC to start down. While descending I slowed the rate of cabin climb and noted we still had control and that pressurization still did not appear to be an issue. Passing through 27000 ft. we received a 'Cabin Alt' caution as the cabin climbed above 8;000 ft.; I noted delta P still above 6.2. I stopped climbing the cabin at 9000 ft. cabin altitude to avoid inadvertently deploying the passenger oxygen masks and asked the First Officer to expedite our descent to lower delta P; cabin pressure held at 9000 ft. We continued our descent to 10;000 ft. as a precaution; I notified Dispatch of the situation; they requested we return to ZZZ. We coordinated with ATC and returned. The Flight Attendants were advised of the situation [and of] returning. I made an announcement to the passengers advising we had experienced a minor mechanical issue; the aircraft was still safe but as a precaution we were going to return. The flight was successful without further incident; we swapped ships in ZZZ and completed the turn.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported their windshield shattered which resulted in returning to their point of departure.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X was landing HHR on an IFR flight plan. There were multiple weather cells in the airspace and LAX Aircraft were deviating around the final to the north. I had DYNR/EAFR combined and was quite busy handling the coordination for the deviations with STAR/ZUMR and figuring out the sequence for dependent simultaneous ILS's. I advised Aircraft X of some weather; but did not issue a heavy precipitation on the route to HHR. I asked Aircraft X if they could advise HHR in sight because the HHR weather was reporting BKN045 and LAX Aircraft could not get the visual. We also did not have staffing available in the facility to open up parallel monitors for independent simultaneous approaches. Aircraft X responded HHR in sight and I cleared them for the visual approach. Traffic for LAX was increasing and frequency congestion was becoming a problem. Aircraft x did have delays with their read backs/understanding as well. Aircraft X went down to 1100 ft. in a 2000 ft. MVA and I issued a low altitude alert. Aircraft X responded with; 'correcting'. Then Aircraft X kept heading toward the LAX finals and I asked them once or twice if they still see HHR. Then the HHR weather deteriorated to IFR and I advised Aircraft X that they'd need the localizer approach. I told the CIC (Controller in Charge) to open up monitors; they were trying to find staffing at the time already. I then got Aircraft X above the MVA and vectored them for the approach while continuing to deal with LAX deviations. After clearing Aircraft X for the localizer runway 25; I switched them to HHR tower; monitors had opened at this time. Aircraft X then proceeded to do a left turn southbound on about a 7 mile final without notification to me from HHR tower. Monitor 1 then called HHR and asked what was going on. Aircraft X then checked back on frequency with me heading 160; no coordination. I climbed Aircraft X above the MVA and vectored them for another approach. I also asked the pilot if he could accept the approach and they agreed they could. I was then relieved.[We need] staffing. We have more than enough people on a shift to facilitate monitors being open. So many coworkers are worried about their long breaks and getting done early that we are leaving the operational floor short between shifts.




Synopsis: SCT Approach Controller reported inability to manage aircraft due to staffing issues.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; MEL; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: During pre-flight the PIC noted a patch on RH tail De-ice Boot System had started to delaminate.  After getting a ladder; and closer inspection; three boot patches were delaminating.  Called company maintenance and was told there is a new Non-Essential Function (NEF) deferral procedure allowing flight for 10 more days after verifying a boot operation check that was not yet available to the line pilots.  Called the Assistant Chief Pilot (ACP) and was told to write it up as AOG and maintenance would change it to the new NEF.  Conducted the procedure single pilot (PIC fatigued) as instructed by the ACP and confirmed de-ice lights illuminated in cockpit with APU bleed air system.  Aircraft was returned to service with no limitations other than a 10 day limit for operations. Having a de-ice boot system that has been repaired three times and the repair patches were failing; I believe the NEF protocol should be reviewed for stricter operating limitations.  Our planned flight was in high mountain terrain; 1 mile visibility and snow conditions.  As a flight crew we believed this problem to be a safety of flight issue with the current flight conditions.  Apparently; the company with assistance from the FAA disagreed and further flight with a questionable de-ice system into known icing is considered airworthy.

Callback: Reporter stated their company and FAA had come to an agreement allowing deferral of damaged pneumatic de-ice boots under the Non-Essential Functions (NEF) deferral criteria. He and other pilots believe that flying into icing conditions with de-ice boot repair patches delaminating; is a safety of flight issue that should not be deferred under NEF procedures. No one can explain why the FAA would agree to that type of deferral without stricter operating limitations.



Synopsis: A First Officer reports finding several repair patches delaminating on the Right-Hand (R/H) Horizontal Leading Edge Pneumatic De-Ice Boot on a Cessna CE-560XLS aircraft. Airworthiness and safety concerns are also raised about the failing de-ice boot repairs being deferred under a Non-Essential Function (NEF) procedure; and the aircraft being released for operations into known icing conditions.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Assigned CADIT SIX Departure. On departure Runway 8R ATL; told by Tower to fly heading 070 at the middle marker.  Turned NAV radio marker volume to almost full high.  Expected to hear MM and see MM emblem on PFD.  Did not see or hear MM indications so Tower said we were past the MM and to turn left heading 070.  We complied.  The only guidance we could find regarding this procedure is on one of the briefing pages; saying to 'use your best judgment.'  Huh?  We were not sure if ILS has to be tuned in to hear and see marker indications and; if so; it will take approximately 45 seconds to find the chart and tune the radio.  If this occurs on the runway at the same time you are cleared for takeoff; this is an unacceptable amount of time.  We could have had the frequency tuned in STBY radio; but ATL changes runways on occasion; which requires F/O to go heads-down at a very congested airport.  Our Company needs to talk to ATL about this procedure.  'Turn left at the 1 DME;maybe; but this turn at the MM and 'use your best judgment' is nonsense.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reports being cleared via the CADIT 6 RNAV via PDC but on Runway 8L the crew is cleared by the Tower to turn left to 070 at the middle marker.  The crew is not able to identify the middle marker and is instructed to turn by the Tower.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DXR.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DXR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I received a clearance to taxi from the FBO at DXR to Runway 26 via Taxiways R and A. Having never been to this FBO; I followed what I thought the instruction meant and turned out of the FBO ramp and made a left onto Taxiway A; stopping before entering the runway. I realized there was no hold-short line. That's when Ground Control called and said I was supposed to turn right out of the ramp; follow R in the other direction; turn left on A and stop at the displaced threshold line. There was absolutely no impact on safety as here were no other airplanes on the taxiway; runway or approach. I think a way to avoid confusion for those who are new to the airport and this FBO would be to add signage at the exit point of the FBO ramp explaining that aircraft should follow Taxiway R to the right and that Runway 26 has a displaced threshold.




Synopsis: A pilot departed the DXR FBO ramp and made a left hand turn onto Taxiway A; which placed his aircraft beyond the Runway 26 hold short line in a charted Hot Spot; which is a good distance from the runway.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Law Enforcement
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The UAV began a transit toward its home base due to rapidly deteriorating weather conditions in the vicinity of airport. I requested and was cleared into the adjacent operating areas at FL230 while transiting westbound. Crossing from adjacent areas; I requested clearance into the restricted area from Center. Center stated that they would advise Approach of our intentions. We remained with Center while we transited into and loitered in the operating area. The recovery aircrew at the destination advised us that they would be unable to talk to Center from their ground control station and requested we switch to destination airport Approach so they could regain control of the aircraft. At that time I requested a handover to Approach from Center; on the same frequency I previously requested clearance into the restricted area; and was cleared to switch to Approach from Center. At that time we immediately switched to Approach and checked in. The Controller asked our intentions and I stated that the destination airport controllers would be regaining control of the UAV and that they would be requesting a recovery to its home base. Immediately following that call I passed the aircraft control over to the destination flight crew and they checked in with Approach; who was querying the destination flight crew about our handover from Center. Following the flight I spoke with a Tower Controller via telephone and relayed the above events.




Synopsis: A MQ-9 pilot reported communications difficulties while attempting to transfer ATC control of the UAV to the final approach crew.