elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: My general safety concern is that Company's daily operation has been pushed beyond the airline's actual logistical capacity.  I believe that the recent route system expansion was not well thought out logistically; and is now creating an unsafe chain of events that increases the likelihood of a significant aviation mishap.  In addition to an already strained route system; I believe that the recent decision to require vaccinations for all employees will only compound (Company)'s already significant personnel shortfall.  Many employees will choose to be placed on unpaid leave just before the busy Christmas and New Year Holiday travel season rather than be forced to receive a vaccination that they do not want based on their sincerely held beliefs or cannot take because of personal medical concerns.  Meanwhile; these same employees are expected to show up to work between now and (date) and perform as if their livelihoods are not being threatened.  I believe that the situation that Company finds itself in today is very similar to the situation that NASA found itself in just prior to the launch of the Challenger in 1986.The chain of decision making errors could have been broken at many points leading up to that ill-fated launch; which I watched live on television.  Unfortunately; the poor decision making chain was not broken; and people died as a result.  My hope is that Company will learn from history; identify the very real and present threats to our operation; and balance the appropriate barriers against these threats to ensure that Safety of our Customers (both external and internal) comes first.Company must reduce its daily operation to something that is logistically feasible and can handle the fluctuations that are to be expected in a route system of that size and scope.  The Company must plan for the additional reduction in personnel at the beginning of Month as a result of its vaccine requirement and policy.  The Company should also explore its options regarding the recent Federal Government mandates for vaccination requirements of companies engaged in federal contracts.  Did the Federal Government breach its contracts when it unilaterally changed the terms of said contracts?




Synopsis: Pilot reported safety concerns related to inadequate staffing that could result if employees take leave in order to not comply with the company's vaccine mandate.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEE.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: At the Runway 31 taxiway 'A' hold short line; many trees prevent the visual observation of the Runway 31 approach.  Also when on approach to Runway 31 the pilot is unable to see aircraft holding short and may think there are no aircraft that could enter the runway.  These trees prevent the PIC from verifying that no aircraft pose a collision risk nor allow the PIC to backup ATC.I did not see a NOTAM about trees at the Leesburg airport (LEE).  The AFD has a note about 'a' tree; but not at this location.




Synopsis: BE200 Captain reported that trees block the view of approaching traffic while holding short of Runway 31 at LEE. Conversely the same trees obscure the view of an aircraft on approach to Runway 31; of an aircraft holding short.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out after execution of touch and go landing; engine abruptly lost power between 300 FT and 500 FT AGL. Loss of engine was noted and throttle was checked to ensure proper throttle position. Zero throttle response was given and propeller continued to slow noticeably. Traffic call was made regarding engine failure and position of possible crash location. Due to low altitude and lack of possible options; [a] decision was made to put aircraft down in the best suitable location - roughly 5 degrees off runway center line. Due to loss of engine; off field landing straight ahead was attempted and made. Aircraft touched down approximately last 5 FT to 10 FT of runway and departed paved surface; resulting in aircraft tipping onto cowling and wingtip; coming to rest approximately 75-100 yards from the end of runway. Passenger exited aircraft while pilot secured and exited aircraft as well. Both occupants refused medical service and aircraft was towed back to owners' hangar via 4x4 truck.




Synopsis: RV6 pilot reports an engine failure following a touch and go on a 6;700 foot runway. The decision is made to land straight ahead; touching down on the last ten feet of runway. The aircraft comes to a stop about 100 yards past the end of the runway; resting on the cowl and a wing tip. No injuries are reported.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSN.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
When detected: Other UAV Operator
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a small UAS. During the flight; the aircraft passed in front of the sun and I lost visual contact for approx. 10 seconds. Afterwards; I could not reacquire visual contact. I could hear the propeller and executed what I estimated was a 180 degree turn with the throttle at mid-position to bring the plane back to my location. After waiting approximately the time the plane had been flying away from me; I scanned the likely area of sky but could not see it. I then executed a 90-degree banked turns to put the increase the visibility of the plane (the plane was flying in a stabilized mode with a roll limit of 90 degrees; so full aileron stick-deflection would cause a consistent 90-degree bank angle). When I was unable to see the plane (I could still hear the propeller at this point) I executed a series of turns while monitoring the RSSI (receiver signal level transmitted from the plane back to the transmitter) and tried to find a course that would increase the RSSI level indicating the plane was flying closer. Unfortunately; the RSSI telemetry system is not very accurate at this range and I was unable to get a stable enough signal. At this point the telemetry link was lost (the transmitted signal has a substantially longer range). To minimize any potential damage on landing; I closed the throttle and applied full back elevator to slow the forward speed and descent rate until I estimated the plane would have landed (approximately one minute). The primary initiation of this event was a brief loss in awareness of the plane's path relative to the sun. Normally I avoid flying near the sun but in this case I misjudged.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported losing sight of the drone while controlling it in-flight.
Date: 201305
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The PDC had a filed route of IAD BUNZZ 2 Ramay.  There was no revised segment.  However; in the REMARKS section it said CAPITAL 8 DEPARTURE.  So that's what we thought we were supposed to load in the FMGC.  After a Tower assigned heading of 230 after takeoff from 19L we were switched to Departure Control.  They cleared us direct to TIICE intersection and the remainder of the BUNZZ 2 Departure.  I told the Controller the PDC said the CAPITOL 8.  There was no deviation on our part but it is confusing from the PDC which departure they wanted us to fly. It is not safe to be heads down reprogramming the box shortly after takeoff; in my opinion.


Second narrative: The filed and cleared route is the BUNZZ 2 SID but the remarks state CAPITAL 8 DEPARTURE.  Tower assigned us a 230 heading with our takeoff clearance from 19L and we departed using the Capital 8 Departure.  Departure Control gave us direct TIICE; the first fix on the BUNZZ 2 SID; which had us scrambling to quickly insert it due to the FMGC not capable of loading both the Capital 8 and the BUNZZ 2 into the box.  This is ambiguous and confusing.  No lateral or vertical deviation occurred but this needs to be addressed as it is a setup for an error and greatly doubled the workload on the initial climbout.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew receives a confusing PDC which they interpret incorrectly and insert the wrong SID in the FMGC.  This is quickly straightened out after departure with no appreciable track deviation.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
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 B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: First Officer spotted a white medium sized drone within a couple hundred feet to the right side of aircraft at 700 feet and [on a] two mile final [to] Runway 22L EWR. Continued normal approach and landing. Reported to ATC; Dispatch; Chief Pilot; and Airport Authority.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the First Officer saw a UAS near the aircraft while on final approach to a Class B airport.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We de-iced at the gate. Using the ACARS; snow was indicated at the beginning of deicing. Holdover time 140 minutes with Type 4. During process; precipitation changed to FZDZ (Freezing Drizzle); new ACARS showed holdover time the same. Neither of these indicated the need for any type of wing check. When start time was given to us by deicing; precipitation was reported as nil. On taxi out; I noticed a small patch of ice adhering to the nose; just below and down from my wiper. I asked the First Officer to perform a wing check (not called for by any ACARS paperwork). He returned reporting a large area of ice on top of the wing aft of Engine 2. We coordinated a return to gate for deicing. We received another round of deicing and reinitiated our departure.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that after deicing in freezing drizzle conditions ice was noted on the aircraft nose. A wing check revealed the need for additional deicing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Arrived at A/C with [main cabin] door open and entry door closed with moderate rain. Water was on the floor with no absorbent pads being used. I wrote up water inspection required; and MX personnel inspected the E&E [Electronic and Equipment] compartment and signed it off as good. Later in my preflight; Avionics Tech was called due to GPWS not testing. Upon entering the E&E compartment; he said it was full of water and that several cannon plugs and avionic boxes were soaked. The GPWS box was shorted out due to water. The water was leaking from a bad seal between the flooring and I-beams; not the usual place it leaks and thus the water diverters that have been installed were not working to keep the water away from the avionics. I wrote up the water intrusion a second time and MX was called back out to soak up the water. As a crew; we discussed the situation and were not comfortable taking the aircraft with the current weather.Lack of following company procedures for preventing water intrusions on the Airbus. In this situation; the initial water intrusion inspection by MX was incomplete. My biggest concern here is that I was getting conflicting stories from MX and Avionics. I lost confidence in MX after initial inspection was found to be incomplete and signed off. The Avionics Tech sounded very concerned with what he found. If the GPWS had not failed; the avionics techs would not have been called and we would have departed with water in the aircraft in marginal weather. Maybe we should have avionic techs do the water intrusion inspections rather than the line MX personnel.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported arriving to aircraft with main cabin door open while it was raining. Inspection was completed and signed off by Maintenance; but Avionics Tech found E&E compartment filled with water.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi-out; an oil burning smell was observed by both Captain and First Officer.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a fumes event during taxi-out.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being delayed for 30 minutes; 40 minutes by the time we actually pushed; we received our load closeout via ACARS and notices HAZMAT listed on board. We had not been given any notification nor a NOPIC [Notice to PIC] form up to that point. We were running late due to ramp loading; so the jet way had been pulled. All doors had also been closed/armed and the flight attendants had given their safety demo. We were essential just waiting for the close out. Immediately upon receiving the load close out with the performance numbers for [Runway] XXR we overheard ATC advise that the airport was being turned around to a [Runway] XY/XZ takeoff and landing configuration. Although an interruption to the review of our takeoff performance was warranted; we should have continued to follow up with the Load Closeout and query why there was HAZMAT indicated even though we had no notice of it up until this point. We reviewed all else on the Load Closeout per SOPs; but failed to follow up on the HAZMAT portion.We were advised by Dispatch that we had not signed a NOPIC for our onboard HAZMAT approximately 45 min after departure vis ACARS.There were three main factors in the cause of our incident. The first was a lack of communication with the agent regarding the HAZMAT (I.E. no NOPIC had been sent to the flight deck). The second factor was us being already late. There was added pressure to be as ready as possible for push (I.E. jet way pulled away). The third factor which stopped us from taking appropriate action for the miscommunication was the distraction from the change in airport operation.Deviating from SOPs can be prevented by slowing ourselves down and having shared attention on important tasks; such as the review of the Load Closeout. As a crew we work to minimize delays; but in this case it; it became a contributing factor of our incident.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch that resulted in departure without completion of Hazmat documentation procedures.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing a training flight with my student. The airport we operate out is uncontrolled (XXX). The winds were very light and favoring Runway XX. Me and my student planned on taking off Runway XX. We transmit our Intentions on CTAF that we are planning taking off Runway XX. I hear the other aircraft on the radio and they say plan on landing Runway XY. Since they were coming from the north they announced that they plan over flying the field and entering the downwind. So I thought that they are probably going to be another 15 minutes give or take and not be factor. So I go ahead and do another radio call that we are departing Runway XX. So on the upwind portion of the pattern at around 500 feet AGL me and my student see the aircraft on the final for Runway XY. I Immediately take controls continue my climb and turn to the right. After investigating the incident I have discovered that the aircraft decided to enter right base for XY and land. The other aircraft did not go around they continued their approach and landed.




Synopsis: A Flight Instructor reported an NMAC event during initial climb with opposite direction landing aircraft. Flight Instructor stated the landing aircraft provided inaccurate position radio calls.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: CV 580
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While enroute the cabin started to decompress and Cabin Compressor Oil low light illuminated within 20 NM of ZZZ.  Advised ATC and requested descent; started descent.  While performing Loss of Pressurization checklist; we observed Low Oil Pressure Warning Light illuminate while oil temperature and pressure appeared normal.  Right oil quantity gauge indicated 4 gallons which is above minimum required for dispatch. Preventative engine shutdown initiated by Pilot Flying.  Engine shutdown checklist accomplished. Continued diversion to ZZZ with safe landing.


Second narrative: No emergency declared or fire trucks were required at the request of the Captain. Made safe landing at ZZZ.


Synopsis: Low oil pressure indications and a failing pressurization system convinced a Convair 580 flight crew to divert to a nearby airport.  Although the right engine was shut down as a precautionary measure; no emergency was declared.