elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Plane Under Tow
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
When detected: Other During Towing Procedures
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While following an aircraft under tow by the ramp; we were put in an uncomfortable situation because the ramp has no way to secure an aircraft in the event of an emergency.The ramp was towing an aircraft from the terminal to the maintenance base. We were following them towing an aircraft to the maintenance base as well. The ramp was instructed to hold. They didn't stop for reasons unknown. When the Tower questioned them; they stated that they were having trouble with their tug. They were then instructed to stop and acquire another tug. They complied with the instructions to hold.As the situation started to heat up with the Tower and the ramp personnel; I could see that the ramp personnel were starting to become complacent and confused by the instructions by the Tower. I felt he could have easily sat the aircraft down without any chalks to support the aircraft from moving. This here lies the danger!Since ramp typically performs aircraft movement without a brake rider; in the event of an emergency such as this; the aircraft could have rolled back unchalked and struck my aircraft putting myself and crew at risk. They do not carry chalks typically. Furthermore; we technicians don't carry chalks either because in the past the chalks have fallen out of the tug onto the taxiway and put all aircraft under movement at risk of serious injury if they were ran over.Thankfully they were able to convince the Tower that the tug was now operational and they could get it to maintenance base safely. Tower allowed them to continue their tow! If they would have complied with the Tower original instructions of setting the aircraft down and get another tug and the way that they appeared to be complacent; the story could have been completely different!




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported observing Ramp personnel towing an aircraft without a brake rider and no ability to address tractor problems.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The supervisor came into the area told the Controller in Charge (CIC) to start the briefing and walked away. The CIC started the briefing and the supervisor walked to a different sector; watched it for a minute; then walked over to the printer; looked at the strips; put them in the strip box then casually walked back to The CIC who was nearly done with his briefing. I was at a sector and could barely hear the CIC giving his briefing so there was no way the Supervisor could hear it from across the room. What is the point of giving a relief briefing if no one hears it?If controllers have to be present for relief briefings then shouldn't supervisors have to too?




Synopsis: A Controller observed a Supervisor walk away from the Controller-in-Charge while the Controller-in-Charge was giving the Supervisor a position relief briefing.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out passing approximately FL290; the Cabin Altitude Horn sounded with the Cabin Altitude Warning light. We immediately donned our masks and complied with the Warning Horn or Warning Light Cabin Altitude Checklist. The First Officer was the Pilot Flying and we transferred aircraft control; so he could run the checklist and monitor the pressurization panel. We ran the Cabin Altitude Warning/Abnormal Pressurization Checklist and could not control the cabin altitude. We then initiated an emergency descent and declared an emergency with ATC. ATC asked if we wanted to return and we confirmed that was our plan. We received a clearance direct to the airport and descended to their MVA of 16;000 feet.We informed the flight attendants of the situation during the descent and asked them if they could see anything that would cause us to lose pressurization since both packs were operating as advertised and there was no cockpit indication of why we were losing pressurization (door open lights; etc.). They claimed everything was fine in the cabin. Then we informed the passengers with a brief synopsis of the incident and our plan to return. The cabin descended below 10;000 feet a few minutes after we leveled off at 16;000 feet. The First Officer contacted Operations of our return and reason for return. The rest of the arrival and landing was uneventful. Emergency equipment was standing by and; while taxiing to the gate; we terminated the emergency. Maintenance met us at the gate and we thoroughly briefed them on the incident.During a Maintenance walk around of the aircraft after the incident; there was a bungee cord hanging out of the aft cargo door. We had an MEL on the cargo door hold open mechanism/device. I will now ask Ramp specifically about door condition prior to pushback if there is an MEL dealing with any aircraft access. Pressurization was checked on Climb Checklist. No one 'felt' the cabin climbing. I need a better scan to include cabin altimeter during the climb up to altitude.




Synopsis: A B737-300 flight crew declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport upon receipt of a cabin altitude warning as they climbed through FL290.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; when landing gear retracted; got primary and secondary red indications of right main landing gear and/or gear doors not fully retracted. Contacted departure control; continued departure procedure at 210 KIAS and leveled at 10000 MSL headed northeast while running QRH. Complied with QRH; recycled gear down; got normal gear down indications; then gear handle back up. Same indications when gear retracted again. Consulted with Maintenance; Dispatch; sent ACARS air turn back message; and returned. Fuel dump was not necessary to land under maximum landing weight; did not declare an emergency as gear down indications were fully normal; no other malfunctions were present. On ground Maintenance personnel stated right main gear door recently underwent major maintenance. Gear system may need further tweaking.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a failure of the right main landing gear to retract fully after takeoff. QRH procedures were complied with; but were unsuccessful and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We received vectors to the visual. We were only a few miles outside the FAF. I was watching to see how we would get slowed and configured in time as the Pilot Flying kept it fast. As we approached the FAF I suggested to get the gear down as I saw he was trying to slow down and go down. It was shortly after this we both saw we were high; fast; and not going to be stable by 1;000. We decided to go-around. The Pilot Flying hit takeoff/go-around buttons and requested gear up. I called Tower and informed of the go-around. We were given runway heading and up to 2;000. We were at about 1;600 feet if I remember correctly. The plane started to turn right; I told him to fly runway heading. I then said to turn left to fly runway heading. Tower asked why we were going around and I told them to standby. At this point I was sorting out that no one was flying the plane. I took the yoke and made a turn back towards runway heading. I asked if he was flying and he said yes the autopilot was on. It was not. I said no I am flying it. We were at least 10-20 degrees off runway heading and blew through 2;000 feet. Things were getting back to normal at about 2;500 feet; runway heading; 200 knots; flaps 8. I then let Tower know why we went around they handed us back to Approach to get vectored back around. I reloaded the approach and realized I need to be ahead of everything even though I was not Pilot Flying. I went back to white needles and suggested he do the same so that we could get the ghost needles. We were vectored out well past the FAF and coupled to the approach as normal. All was normal until about 150 feet and he started to get high; I stated he was getting high; we landed barely in the touchdown zone. I believe we touched down at the last touchdown zone markers.Pilot Flying confusion as to the status of the aircraft automation.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported issues using cockpit automation.
Date: 201911
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was crossing the runway by M3 in a diesel tractor with 4 cans and stopped on the island. The first [Company] plane passed by. Then the second [Company] plane passed by. As it passed by; I heard a thump sound. The plane kept going. I crossed to the other side and stopped. I looked at the tractor and didn't see any damage. I looked at the cans and didn't see any damage. I parked the cans by B7. I drove back to T5 and told the Supervisor. I told what happened. I then saw [the Supervisor] taking pictures of the tractor.




Synopsis: Vehicle Driver reported possible collision with aircraft.
Date: 201506
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-A1 Katana
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
Second aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying and saw my formation buddy's plane. I joined on his wing then he joined on mine. We flew together for about a minute or two. Later [I found] out from my friend that was not his plane and he was not flying that day. The plane we joined is the same model Citabria and exact paint scheme with the same tail markings. Both planes are completely identical and I mistakenly joined on the wrong plane.




Synopsis: DA-20 pilot reported flying formation with an aircraft that was unaware of his intentions.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While doing commercial training with a student; we went to a non-towered field (ZZZ) to do emergency procedures. We were practicing engine failures after takeoff and doing a turn back to the runway in the case of an engine failure after takeoff. We were landing on Runway XX-XY. We were making radio calls 10 miles out; 5 miles out; on final and after departure. In each transmission we stated our intentions. After departing Runway XX; we saw another aircraft which had just landed on [Runway] XZ. They were coming to a stop prior to the crossing runway and we were already airborne about 500 ft AGL. We had never heard any transmissions from the other aircraft. We decided to use our second radio and we then heard their transmissions. We discovered that our other radio had gone inoperative.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported that during on takeoff another aircraft landed on crossing runway resulted in a ground conflict. Instructor determined their radio had failed.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BWI
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: An E190 was landing Runway 33L when a false target was observed at one of the intersections of 33L. As the E190 rolled through the false target; the target disappeared. The E190 completed his landing roll out and was instructed to exit the runway at Foxtrot and join Papa and contact Ground. The aircraft was observed clear of the runway and was moving slowly to pass behind an aircraft southbound on Papa Taxiway. A B737 landed Runway 33L and as the aircraft touched down the ASDE-X alerted that the runway was occupied; even though the previous aircraft was observed off of the runway both visually and on the ASDE-X. I would recommend that the ASDE-X equipment be eliminated as it is unreliable. Here at BWI we have many false alerts take place and many false targets show up and disappear on the ground RADAR. If this is not an option; than the parameters of the ASDE-X need to be checked so that false alerts such as this one do not happen.




Synopsis: BWI Controller described a 'false' ASDE-X alarm involving a Runway 33L landing and a non-existing target at a runway intersection; the reporter suggesting either refinement of the ASDE-X parameters or discontinuing use of the equipment.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AFW.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D AFW
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
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; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on approximately 7 mile final on the ILS at 2900 feet when they were handed off to AFW from Approach.  As soon as Aircraft X was switched the Conflict Alert alarm went off.  There was an unknown aircraft crossing from east to west 6 miles north of the field.  The unknown aircraft was at 2600 feet climbing.  The unknown aircraft was directly in front of Aircraft X.  I issued a traffic alert to Aircraft X.  Aircraft X reported traffic in sight and passed over the aircraft about 200 feet above it.  This happens often here at AFW and is happening more frequently with our increase in traffic. An adjacent non towered airport is 5 miles northeast of AFW airport; outside the Class D airspace.  Many times aircraft depart this airport westbound and stay clear of the D airspace and never call AFW tower.  These aircraft routinely cross the final approach fix at 2500 feet; the same altitude as IFR Aircraft on the ILS for AFW.  If the Class D airspace was extended to the north these aircraft would have to cross further north or call AFW so that we could use altitude to separate them.




Synopsis: A AFW Tower Controller reported an arriving aircraft on an instrument approach had a NMAC with an unidentified VFR aircraft departing a satellite non towered airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Booster Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was released under an MEL for an inoperative right center fuel tank boost pump. The Dispatch Release does not list the center fuel as ballast; but the loading schedule must plan for it as ballast; per the MEL. When applying this MEL; there will be errors between the loading schedule; weight and balance calculator; and FMC calculations requiring non-standard procedures to correct aircraft weight calculations affecting proper weight/balance and flight performance data. The procedure to plan for the center tank fuel becoming unusable is required on the load sheet; but not the Dispatch Release (usable center fuel). The procedure to use revised zero fuel weight in the weight and balance calculator and FMC creates calculation errors. The OPC fuel weight will not match the normal listing for fuel on the load sheet and the FMC will double count the center fuel in its gross weight calculation creating flight performance errors. To make the load sheet/weight and balance calculator data match the FMC data; we had to input two different ZFWs. Please reference IR # for detailed analysis.


Second narrative: [No additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew took exception to the manner in which center tank ballast fuel; required when a boost pump is inoperative; is accounted for in performance and flight planning programming.