elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my preflight I noticed that the longitudinal trim pointer tip was missing. The longitudinal and aileron trim pointer tips on the MD-80 are tritium-gas filled capsules. Tritium is a radioactive gas that emits electrons while it decays. Those electrons then excite the gas-filled capsule so that it glows as a self-powered gas even in the absence of any direct light source. It is designed that way so that the pilots would be able to trim the airplane in the event of a complete power failure in darkness. Well; the longitudinal trim pointer was missing and Maintenance (MX) signed off the logbook saying that according to McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-9-27-311 the pointer tip was not required anymore. I accepted the airplane; however; having gotten bogus sign-offs before I promised myself to obtain that bulletin and see for myself. I did and unfortunately that service bulletin deals with modifications to the internal jack-screw mechanism there is not one word in the whole bulletin that would give anyone rise to believe that the pointer tips can be missing. I checked the maintenance manual. It actually says that if the pointers are damaged or broken then everybody would have to leave the cockpit as tritium gas is radioactive/toxic and hazmat procedures have to be followed.How do I know that the missing tip is not somewhere lying broken inside the center pedestal? The bulletin gives no relief to fly with missing pointer tips. Why did MX sign off the logbook with a reference that does not address the discrepancy? How are pilots supposed to safeguard against bogus sign-offs if we do not have access to the documentation that is being referenced? The pointer tips are not mentioned in our MEL book? Can I now assume that either they are installed or if missing the airplane is not airworthy? MX needs to be held accountable for their actions. Bogus sign-offs just to get the airplane off the gate is a no-no. I am extremely disappointed that this happened again.




Synopsis: MD-83 Captain reported a missing longitudinal trip pointer tip. The trim pointer tips are tritium-gas filled capsules. Reporter stated tritium gas is radioactive/toxic and hazmat procedures have to be followed if they are damaged.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a northerly heading on the east side of a Class D airspace; I called the Tower requesting to transition the Class D airspace; the Tower then informed me of a Cessna 172 that had just departed [the airport] on an IFR flight plan. I was asked; and did; IDENT on 1200. And at that time; I did not have the aircraft in sight. The Tower instructed me to perform a right 360 degree turn to increase separation; which I did. Upon rolling out wings level; I then saw the 172 climbing at my 11:00; heading east; and I informed the Tower of this. To improve our separation; I descended a couple hundred feet and the C172 passed directly over me by; I estimate; 300 FT to 500 FT. At NO time did I feel in danger; because I clearly saw the other aircraft and was easily able to provide VFR separation; but I assume the TRACON facility; controlling the C172's departure; was concerned. I called the Tower and said 'I bet that looks real 'good' on the TRACON's radar screen'; and the Tower operator; with some exasperation; agreed. In hindsight; it would have been better had I been instructed to initially perform an immediate left turn; which would have put me well South of the climbing/departing aircraft. To repeat; I was never concerned about the incident or felt either aircraft was in jeopardy; but in hindsight; I believe an immediate LEFT turn; rather than the right 360; would have been a better solution.




Synopsis: The pilot of an experimental aircraft was operating in the vicinity of Class D airspace. When he contacted the Tower Controller to request transition through the airspace; he was advised of an IFR departure from that airport. When he could not acquire the aircraft visually; the Tower suggested a 360 degree turn for separation. When he completed that orbit; he observed the traffic; and descended. He estimated that the aircraft passed over him within 300-500 FT.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Latitude (C680A)
Aircraft component: APU Electrical
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While outside running the aircraft two APU starter generator wires were found to be disconnected. The wires that were disconnected were taped separately to the two larger terminal wires and labeled. After bringing the aircraft back into the hangar I connected the two disconnected terminal wires as they were labeled and taped and torqued them per the AMM.I found out when I returned to work that evening the wires were marked incorrectly so I had installed them incorrectly. We would normally install the wires how they are marked. As far as I was aware the operations check was written up separately.




Synopsis: Technician reported that APU generator wires were mismarked; resulting in incorrect installation.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was watching a trainee in Sector X. He was having issues giving a pop up IFR clearance to an aircraft. As he was trying to figure it out I saw Aircraft Y to the south west of the airport at 075 and Aircraft X was headed south bound climbing to 080. I initially thought it would not have been a factor; however; I then heard the trainee give the IFR clearance the wrong altitude and issued a climb into another sectors airspace; IFR. I went and corrected it to avoid a potential airspace violation or worse. As soon as I fixed that situation I saw that Aircraft Y had climbed to 080 and was headed right at Aircraft X. The trainee issued traffic to Aircraft Y and Aircraft Y said he the airbus (Aircraft X) in sight. Aircraft X then said that he was responding to an RA. The trainee then told Aircraft Y to descend for traffic. I keyed up and told Aircraft X to report complete with RA and that the traffic had Aircraft X in sight. Aircraft X said he was going to file a near midair.Aircraft Y should have been capped at a VFR altitude and coordination should have been made to keep Aircraft X climbing. Trainees should be competent at issuing an IFR clearance prior to a control position.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an IFR pop up aircraft was given an IFR altitude resulting in an airborne conflict with an IFR departure.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We had finished our push off of [the] gate and had been cleared to taxi. As we began our taxi [another aircraft] pushed off [a nearby] gate and overlapped our wing tip clearance requiring us to stop. Had we not stopped the two aircraft would have collided. Contacted [Airport Operations] after departure; advised we had a near miss and requested that they save the ramp video. After [the other aircraft] pushed onto [the] taxiway we proceeded without further incident.




Synopsis: B737-800 pilot reported that they had to stop the taxi to avoid a collision with another aircraft being pushed back from an adjacent gate.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 0.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a schedule and needed to arrive by a certain time; however the weather was uncooperative. The problem was that I decided to continue VFR flight into LIFR conditions. I had the approach plate ready to go in case if the weather was not MVFR or VFR upon arrival. It was LIFR upon arrival; so I decided to execute the ILS approach procedure for Runway X at ZZZ. The landing was successful. In all honesty; I should not be alive. I am a VFR-only pilot with just 3.4 hours of simulated instrument time. However; I put to use all of my instrument training and flight simulator experience to shoot an ILS approach to minimums. I think it is very important to emphasize to VFR pilots how stupid of a decision it is to continue flight into IMC. Everyone thinks; 'It won't happen to me. I'll never make a decision that imprudent.' No. That is a lie. Everyone will make a mistake. People need to be educated well ahead of time what are the dangers of continued VFR flight into IMC. Additionally; VFR flight training needs to be changed to better suit an emergency in which a VFR pilot might have no choice but to execute an approach and not be afraid to call up ATC and ask for help.




Synopsis: A low time; non-instrument rated pilot survives penetration of IFR conditions and the successful execution of an ILS approach to minimums. He admits the error in his judgment and offers advice to the industry.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CDC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF CDC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: 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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A student and I flew to Cedar City and were on a practice ILS approach for Runway 20. There was a small airliner a few miles ahead of us and a Bonanza behind us. We were all using Runway 20. We were in radio contact with both of these planes while on approach. As we were descending on the ILS we made radio calls ten; seven and three miles out. The event occurred after we touched down on Runway 20. As we were rolling down the runway; another aircraft landed or was taxiing on Runway 08 and came across our Runway 20. I was able to stop our aircraft once I noticed the other aircraft coming onto Runway 20. The other aircraft also stopped once it saw us. We were both at the intersection of Runways 20-02 and 08-26 and approximately forty feet apart. I waved the other aircraft through the intersection and then followed it to the ramp. Once there I spoke with the pilot and asked if he heard us on final. He said that he heard our 10 mile call but that was all. I asked which frequency he was on; he replied the CTAF 123.0; which we were using as well. I inquired if he and his passengers were okay; and expressed my relief that there was no accident. We then left and flew back to base.




Synopsis: A DA-40 pilot landed on Runway 20 at CDC and found another aircraft rolling out on Runway 08; entering the intersection ahead.  The other aircraft was easily avoided and the event was discussed upon arrival at the ramp.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Microphone
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Without intent to violate the airspace rules I entered Class A airspace while on an IFR filed maintenance flight.As filed via internet; departed home base in a Turbine Legend; contacted Approach as I was climbing out and they could not locate my flight plan and passed me to Center. I was unable to reach Center but continued to try as I climbed to FL175 and held for some time while trying to contact Center on various frequencies including Approach. After sometime at FL175; I climbed to FL250 believing I should follow my 'as filed' route and profile. Was finally able to contact Approach and explain my situation. They asked me to take a northerly heading and descend to FL130 then recommended I land; fix the comm and check my Oxygen System as he felt I was exhibiting hypoxia. I realized I was experiencing hypoxia.Factor I consider contributed to this situation:1. Aircraft is relatively new to me.2. New oxygen masks with internal mic.3. Communications equipment problems.4. Inadvertently transposed [digits in] N number on filed flight plan.Factor Notes:1. Only 40 hours in type and performance level.2. May not have properly adjusted the mask to ensure proper O2 was being delivered and a flawed built in mic may have led to some of the comm issues.3. Aircraft is equipped with dated avionics that I plan to replace with an entirely new panel this winter.4. Center did locate the transposed flight plan and linked it to me.




Synopsis: Pilot of a single engine turbine powered aircraft reported climbing into Class A airspace without being able to pick up a filed IFR clearance before hand due to communications problems. Once communication was established the Controller issued a heading and a clearance to 13;000 FT and suggested that the reporter was exhibiting symptoms of hypoxia and should land. The reporter agreed and proceeded to land.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Turbulence
Aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turn/Bank Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My takeoff clearance from the runway was runway heading and to climb and maintain 2;000 feet MSL. I complied with this assignment and soon after takeoff was instructed to contact Departure. After contacting Departure they instructed me to climb and maintain 3;000 feet MSL and to make a right turn heading 150 degrees. During the turn I noticed the turn coordinator was not showing a turn; it was showing wings level and all other instrument indications were normal.After noticing this malfunction of the flight instrument I decided to return to the airport. I made this request with ATC and received radar vectors for the RNAV approach. While receiving vectors I noticed the turn coordinator start to show turns; but was still very 'sluggish' and inaccurate. After shutting the engines down I also noticed that the red 'OFF' flag did not appear in the window of the turn coordinator as it usually does. No circuit breakers were popped.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported that shortly after departure the turn and bank indicator malfunctioned. Pilot elected to return to field in IMC conditions.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LIH.Airport, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZHN
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival into LIH the tower was closed. We listened to the ASOS and it reported that the visibility was missing. So we pulled up the weather via ACARS and it too was missing the visibility. I queried the Captain if we need a visibility report to land and he did not know. We were able to visually acquire the airport prior to the Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) and did not have time to further research the question; so we both concluded that the safest course of action was to land. The next night on departure from LIH the ASOS was still reporting the visibility missing as well as the temperature missing. The Captain called dispatch and got the visibility and temperature. The visibility from the flight deck was unrestricted so we continued and took off. In flight I researched the situation further and believe we were in error in landing the first night and in taking off on the second night. [The Operations Manual] states that at an uncontrolled field an approved weather source is available and operational. [It also] states the required elements for a Surface Weather Report and includes visibility and temperature. [Another reference] gives the only approved weather source for LIH as the ASOS. I take full responsibility for not knowing this beforehand; but researching it took several hours and required me to gather knowledge from several different sources and is not something that could be figured out during the arrival segment of a flight. I believe this scenario should be more clearly spelled out somewhere in the [Operations Manual].




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported landing and departing LIH without weather information.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The company has accused me; as a union member of not being ethical; I am very concerned with being fined for writing up items in my scope and outside my scope if the situation arises. I am being asked to compromise my principles and not do my job which affects safety of flight and puts my livelihood and the life of innocent people in jeopardy. This is very real and I believe as a conscientious technician I am put in a very unfair position.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reports that air carrier is harassing him for writing up discrepancies.