elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BHM.Tower, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BHM
ATC / advisory: Tower BHM
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A drone flew near us on the right of our aircraft. The First Officer saw the drone and reported it over the radio to the Control Tower. I did not see the drone.Someone flew a drone near our aircraft during our approach to BHM. No course alteration was required. We flew a normal lateral and vertical track to the runway and landed without incident. Nothing out of the ordinary happened other than the drone sighting.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an uneventful airborne conflict with a Drone (UAV) during approach.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As the First Officer; I was the pilot flying on the River Visual Runway 19 into DCA. Wind was about 14 knots gusting to 30: last call I remember from ATC. I was flying the published approach; centered over the river; and by my estimation was within +- 100 feet of recommended altitudes as depicted. At my request prior to the approach; the Captain set up the approach in the FMS to get a snowflake; however; none was depicted and never got a chance to troubleshoot; (He may not have put the runway in L2). Because of the glare; I couldn't see the VASI for 15; and due to the winds taking most of my attention; [I] didn't get a chance to cross reference with the approach plate. Just prior to initiating the last S turn before final (tall buildings west of the river off of our nose); we received two 'Obstacle caution' aural alerts in quick succession. I feathered the control wheel aft and initiated the left turn continuing over the river. The flight concluded with no further events of note. I assume the predictive monitoring looking at our flight path; combined with the wind gusts maybe causing a momentary descent; triggered the alert however can't be sure as I was focused on flying and didn't have any processed data to cross reference. Suggestions: Perhaps a pre-programmed approach for the River Visual 19 in the FMS would be appropriate to at a minimum populate the recommended points with altitudes along the visual route. Seems to be many different ways pilots like to set up this approach and I believe the Captain's unfamiliarity with setting it up the way I requested (per the reading file item that came out a few months ago; RW19; .3nm; in L2) degraded my Situational awareness and likely contributed to the alert. 30 knot reported winds may also have contributed and perhaps there should be a threshold after which automatically switching to the LDA approach into 19.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported receiving a GPWS Obstacle warning on the River Visual to Runway 19 at DCA.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I gave Aircraft X a clearance to cross the arrival fix at 11;000 feet and he already had a speed of 310 knots or greater. When he was around 15;000 feet he said he was reducing speed to 250 knots. I told him to maintain 300 knots. I asked him if it was an aircraft performance requirement. He said it was company policy to reduce speed to 250 knots at 11;000 feet. I told him we have a coordinated speed with Approach to be at 11;000 feet and 300 knots and that he needed to maintain 300 knots. He said unable reducing speed to 250 knots due to company policy 'I can't help it'. I then told the Supervisor; then coordinated the situation with Chicago Approach.There was an aircraft that was about 10 miles behind Aircraft X at the time with the same crossing that I then needed to descend below Aircraft X. As a result I read Aircraft X the Brasher Warning and gave him Chicago Center contact information. I am not sure where it went from there. We have been having this problem for a while now with overseas pilots abiding by company policy and reducing speeds to 250 knots sometimes with no warning disregarding ATC clearances.I believe this is a big enough issue to look into oversees policies on this type of situation and correct it before someone loses separation or worse. Luckily I was slow at the time; but with a big enough trail into the airport a situation like this can cause us to now start vectoring because of an aircraft slowing without warning.




Synopsis: ZAU Center Controller reported a foreign air carrier refused to comply with a speed assignment.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MMGL.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MMGL
Second aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on approach to Runway 28 at MMGL. We had a target speed of 147 KTS. We contacted the Tower and were cleared to land and there was an A320/19 in position and holding. We continued the approach. The Airbus was cleared for takeoff. The closer we got it was becoming obvious the Airbus was not going to be off the runway by the time we touched down. At approximately 200 AGL I elected to go-around. We told the Tower we were going around and we were told to execute the published miss; which is straight ahead to approximately 5 DME and a right turn back to the VOR. This was not going to work since the Airbus had broken ground and was climbing in front and below us and we were catching him. We told Tower this would not work. We opted to offset our path (not an FMC offset) to the left. We could see the Airbus the whole time below and climbing. I seem to remember the Airbus within 200 feet below on the TCAS. We never received an alert or RA. This aircraft was close. And our whole focus was outside the cockpit. Meanwhile we were trying to get the airplane cleaned up. It was a busy time! We were asked by the Tower if we could enter a left visual down wind back to Runway 28. We did [so; however] in the turn we went back in the clouds and were told to contact Approach. We were vectored for another approach to 28. We landed and the Tower never said a word as in; 'sorry about that.' The reason I opted for the go-around was I thought it was very obvious the Airbus was going to be still on the runway when we touched down and if he aborted while we were rolling out it would have been worse than a go-around.




Synopsis: On approach to MMGL the flight crew of a B767-300 opted to go-around at 200AGL when an A320; cleared for takeoff; was not yet airborne.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I did not follow the placard instructions to switch to single tank operation above 5;000 feet; installed on my C172G per AD 72-07-02. The aircraft was full of warm fuel from a desert airport and had been out in the sun. We were cruising lean at 8;500 feet indicating 105 or so MPH. We were 8;000 AGL or so. The engine slowly lost power; sagging and partway recovering on a 10 second period; before losing all power. Carb heat (sustained); mags; mixture (both ways) had no positive effect. We were well within range of MIT and headed there. We switched tanks around rapidly; to no effect. We then stuck on right tank for a while; and later switched to left; and the engine then regained power around 6;000 MSL. Subsequently the engine ran on either tank. We landed anyway. All engine sumps were OK; etc. and we determined that the problem was not following the placard. We then flew home 2.5 hours.What seems odd to me is that we unknowingly restarted the engine using a procedure found in the 1964 POH; but not in the 1966 POH. It would have been helpful if the procedure appeared in the 1966 POH that I have for my plane. People flying this plane above high ground really should know about this procedure. There are rumors out there that this placard is nonsense that 'got the FAA off Cessna's back' about some unexplained engine failures; which is misleading.




Synopsis: A C172G/U with tanks full of warm fuel lost power because of a vapor lock at 8;500 feet but was able to regain power by switching fuel tanks as per a 1964 POH procedure which is not published in some later POHs.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Lifevest/Jacket
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While preparing seats for removal from aircraft during an S1 check; the life vests were being removed and were found to have the wrong safety seals installed. The seals installed were a much heavier style that required cutting to get the life vest removed from [the] pouch. In an actual emergency event the vests would be inaccessible. This is the third aircraft accepted into ZZZ heavy maintenance were this has been found. Aircraft X was the Aircraft prior to Y which had the same problem.The origin of where the seals where installed is unknown and it would be very difficult to trace down this fact. The wrong seals may be mixed with or replaced by mistake at one of the maintenance stations stocking facilities.Suggestions: The stock stations need to check existing inventory and verify the correct seals are stocked and a reminder needs to be issued to have Maintenance personnel look to verify [the] correct seal [is] installed on the life vests at every RON maintenance station.




Synopsis: Technician reported that during the removal of seats from Aircraft X; it was noted the life vests had the wrong safety seals installed. Reportedly; the same issue has been found on three other aircraft during heavy maintenance work.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a climb out I experienced a total electrical failure in my aircraft causing the need to immediately turn back to ZZZ. Since all radios did not work; I was using a handheld backup and Approach Control was able to relay from another aircraft in the vicinity. I stated my location and intention to return to ZZZ but not after deviating from my assigned route and altitude.




Synopsis: RV10 pilot reported an electrical failure that resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were getting deiced in ZZZ; upon finishing deicing I accidentally turned off the number one engine. We tried to start the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) twice but we did not have results. We contacted the company and had to be towed to the gate. Lost off power; running on batteries.After reading the checklist I saw the number two engine had to be off. For some reason after we were done deicing I thought the number one engine was off and saw the start stop selector on the run position; I thought the switch was on the wrong position and needed to be off. I selected the start stop selector to the stop position to start the number one engine and that is when I realized that the engine was already running. Deicing procedures is not something that we perform every day. We tried to start the APU to get power back but it didn't work out. We contacted Operations and Maintenance to get assistance. Check the N2 on the EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) before turning switches.  Double check with the Captain before taking decisions and be more aware.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported inadvertently shutting down engine during taxi after de-icing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in a departure climb in the low flight-levels; we observed an airspeed indication disagreement and associated flags on the primary flight displays; along with an autopilot disconnect. We compared the indications among the three airspeed indicators and determined that the Captain's airspeed indication was unreliable. Since I was flying pilot and my airspeed indication matched the standby airspeed indicator; we determined that I had a reliable airspeed indication and would continue hand flying. We were in IMC and my Captain requested priority handling with ATC and requested a lower altitude. We descended until we were between layers of clouds; somewhere in the mid-teens. Once level between cloud layers the Captain ran the QRH and we formulated a plan to stay out of icing conditions and divert to a suitable airport; which was ZZZ. We changed course to head toward ZZZ and started a descent to both stay out of the clouds and set up for an arrival into the ZZZ terminal area. As we descended and flew further south; the outside air temperature warmed up and the Captain's airspeed indication started getting closer to the indications of the other two airspeed indicators until all three matched and the airspeed disagree warning flags disappeared. We still tried to avoid as many clouds as possible; but subsequent entry into clouds did not produce any more abnormalities. We landed in VMC conditions in ZZZ without incident.It appeared that the heating element(s) on the Captain's pitot tube had failed; resulting in ice accumulation and blockage of the pitot tube.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported an erroneous indication on the Captain's airspeed indicator; possibly due to icing conditions and a faulty pitot heat element.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight loading
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Other Safety Analyst
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Improper cargo loading at warehouse. [Cargo] was not packed properly for transport; it contained dry ice. Cargo called to come to gate to fix.




Synopsis: Air carrier Safety Analyst reported Hazmat material was found to be improperly packaged for transport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight student owns a Be-55 Baron. While accomplishing an IPC and BFR; a near miss occurred at ZZZ ILS XX on short final. Be-55 was short final; straight in on the ILS XX. At the same time a small Cessna turned left base to final for runway XX. Be-55 took evasive action to avoid hitting the Cessna on final. After leaving area; Be-55 student was given a simulated left engine failure at 3;000 MSL; but dropped down into ZZZ1's airspace. Flight Instructor was unable to assist in taking action due to the throw-over yoke or communicate with ATC due to the microphone switch being attached to the throw-over yoke.


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


Synopsis: BE55 flight crew reported NMAC and airspace violation during training flight.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing and clearing on the high speed taxiway we slowed to taxi speed. As I started to add power to taxi; the aircraft slowed to a stop. The aircraft needed a large amount of power to move slowly. I brought the aircraft to a stop and did a cursory inspection; unable to find anything wrong. All aircraft/engine indications were normal.We requested airport authority to send a vehicle out to inspect the aircraft. We then contacted Dispatch and Maintenance. Maintenance advised it appeared we had a locked brake. Per Maintenance we tried several fixes unsuccessfully. They then suggested we taxi slowly; if possible; to attempt to unlock the brake. After taxing about 20 yards; the right inboard tire deflated. At this point; I suggested we have the aircraft towed the rest of the way to the gate. Company tow into gate was normal. Airport fire trucks monitored the aircraft after return to the gate; normal deplaning.




Synopsis: A B737-700 suffered a locked brake after clearing the runway following landing. Attempts to move it deflated one tire; after which the aircraft was towed to the gate and deplaned.