elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer had not seen an autoland and since it was a long day after a short day sleep; I decided it was a good day to do an autoland. The approach was perfect. My FO missed the Approaching Alert Height and I reminded her. She missed the alert height call and I reminded her. Shortly after that I lost situational awareness. For some reason; I thought we were on the ground. I quickly pulled the thrust levers to idle and started to raise the thrust reverser paddles. As soon as I did that I quickly pushed the handles back down. The landing was very firm; but not hard.I did not realize how tired I was. I felt ok. But; that loss of situational awareness gave me a shot of adrenaline and that's when I realized I wasn't as alert as I thought. I really don't think the reversers ever deployed; but because the landing was much harder than I'm used to on an autoland; I thought I better write this report.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that during an autoland procedure; he mistakenly thought the aircraft was on the ground. He set trust to idle and started to raise the thrust reverser paddles resulting in a very firm landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We added power; armed the CTOT/APR [Constant Torque On Takeoff/Automatic Power Reserve functions] and rolled down the runway. At around 100 KIAS we received a configuration warning at which time we executed a rejected takeoff and exited the runway.We immediately discovered the problem; the Condition Levers [CLs] had vibrated just below their acceptable position and caused the warning even though the friction lock was firmly in place. We started a timer; taxied to the ramp; and consulted with Maintenance Control; Dispatch and the Chief Pilot. We determined that it was not a high energy abort because; according to our manuals; we used reverse and only normal braking and were only required to wait 15 minutes for brake cooling before attempting another takeoff. However; our Duty Manager instructed us to write up the event and Contract Maintenance came out to the aircraft and determined the Condition Levers had 'spring back'; suggested that a re-rig be done at some point and signed off the aborted takeoff.


Second narrative: The Condition Lever rigging was rigged in such close tolerance that when pushed full forward to max they actually had a little spring back. With the friction lock on full holding the levers in this position should have prevented the issue; however; it much have just been right on the edge of its tolerance.


Synopsis: A Saab 340 flight crew rejected their takeoff around 100 KIAS upon receipt of a configuration warning due to improperly set condition levers.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pushed back and started engine Number 2. When the operation was completed and we started the single engine after start checklist we noticed that an EICAS message popped up stating Pitot 2 inop. Speaking to Maintenance Control [I] was informed that this was an ongoing matter; they advised us to return to gate and obtain a new aircraft.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported receiving a 'Pitot 2 Inop' EICAS message after pushback during engine start procedures.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This report is in regards to the overall poor quality of marshaling inbound aircraft to gates at [company]. While today's marshaling was particularly egregious into gate XX at ZZZ; it was fairly indicative of the overall poor job our Marshall's are doing across the system. Of particular concern are nonstandard hand signals with regard to direction; and very poor signals to the cockpit with regards to distance remaining in bringing the aircraft to a stop. This has resulted in very sudden stops; stopping at the wrong spot requiring a tug to reposition the aircraft; or excessive power to move the aircraft a few inches. While I would say this degradation in marshaling quality is system wide; it is of particular concern in ZZZ. ZZZ1 and ZZZ2 are also doing an extremely poor job. I don't know if this is a result of poor training or apathy; but it has the potential of doing damage to equipment or injuring employees or passengers if not corrected. I can elaborate further on what I have observed with regards to this problem if contacted.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported poor hand signals by ground personal at this and other locations. Captain believes it is partially due to poor training.
Date: 201508
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working on an aircraft when I saw fuel leaking out of the aircraft wing on the adjacent gate. The fuel was all over the ground and was also under the belt loader in the aft pit of a CRJ700. A small size fuel spill. I ran over and told the fueler to stop fueling the plane. I also told the ramp service to come out from the pit of the airplane. I called operations and asked them to call the fire department so they could give us clearance to move the belt loader because it was running. Supervisor came out to look at the fuel and said to me that the spill was '2 gallons of fuel and it was okay to load the plane' I told the supervisor that fuel was under the belt loader and if there was any kind of spark from the belt loader we wouldn't want that. I wanted to wait for the fire department to tell us it was okay to move the belt loader so the fuelers could clean up the fuel under the belt loader and safety was our number one priority and that loading the airplane with fuel under the running belt loader was not safe. The supervisor said 'it was okay'; I feel this was not safe.




Synopsis: A ramp person detects a fuel spill under the aircraft on the adjacent gate and advises the fueler to stop fueling and advises the company of the spill. The fuel spreads under a running belt loader but when a supervisor arrives on the scene; he believes the spill is not significant and everyone should get back to work.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other uniknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The problem arose when I went to log the flight and found out that I was not current. Contributing factors (beside my inattention) could be that with COVID; both in general and having had it; I have not flown the amount that I normally would. However; I should have been more alert to my 'currency.' I file IFR for every trip whether VMC or IFR and so I filed IFR; again without checking for currency. For corrective actions I have set dates in my calendar quarterly to make sure I am on track for currency.Concerning my medical currency; I have two years 'under my belt' with Basic Med. I went in for my annual physical and gave the forms to my doctor. However; when it was discovered that I was not under Basic Med; I called the Doctor's office and his response was that he remembers the conversation but not filling out any forms. He had done my last Basic Med so I left it in his hands to complete. I understand that it was/is my responsibility to follow up on this; but I did not. Again; I have placed a reminder in my calendar both to renew my Basic Med in two years and then a week later to follow up with my doctor.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported inadvertently flying without a current medical.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I completed a preflight inspection; before starting engine; starting engine with battery; before takeoff; and normal takeoff procedures using the Cessna checklist. I was cleared for takeoff on the runway at ZZZ. I executed a normal takeoff and at approximately 20 ft AGL the engine suffered a drastic; uncommanded power reduction. I landed straight ahead on the runway and exited onto a taxiway. I notified the tower that I had aborted the takeoff and would be returning to the ramp. The engine continuously ran throughout this event and I taxied to the maintenance facility under engine power for inspection.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported a sudden loss of engine power immediately after takeoff. He landed straight ahead on the departure runway and taxied uneventfully to the ramp.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed Aircraft X for takeoff. Once approved separation was anticipated I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. Once airborne I noticed the departures in a closer proximity than anticipated but I was providing visual separation. I verified that I had appropriate separation on the radar display. In my judgment speed and spacing was adequate and I switched both aircraft [to] departure. Not long after I was called by the Departure Controller that they needed more space between departures because I had less than three miles between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. This is not typical of my best practices to ensure separation. A possible factor could be aircraft performance. I wasn't anticipating the trailing aircraft to be so much faster or the lead aircraft to under perform like it did. Both aircraft were similar types. Another factor could be that I had been medically decertified due to a COVID-19 exposure at the facility. I was not sick but I was only notified the day before this incident that my medical had been reinstated and that I was to report to work the next day. [It] was quite a surprise to me and didn't give me any time to mentally prepare to conduct air traffic duties after [several] weeks away from work.The only recommendation would be a more advanced notification of a return to air traffic duties after a long time off. It allows controllers to be more mentally prepared to preform safety related duties.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported a loss of separation between two departures and cited aircraft performance differences as a possible contributing factor.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff and crossed the holdline; with a vehicle on the runway.I had called the departure controller for 2 releases which I received. I cleared the first for takeoff when TRACON called and canceled the release on the 2nd aircraft. After the 1st aircraft departed I approved Airport Operations [Ground Vehicle] on the runway for inspection. I also told [Aircraft X] to expect departure in 3 minutes. About 2 minutes later the Departure controller called back and released [Aircraft X] for departure. I then cleared [Aircraft X] for takeoff on RWY 16R. For some reason something seemed odd and as I noticed [Ground Vehicle] still on the runway almost at the end. [Ground Vehicle] was on centerline turning off the runway at an intersection; and calling clear of the runway. I stopped [Aircraft X] just after he passed holdline. Once [Ground Vehicle] completely cleared (about 10 seconds) I cleared [Aircraft X] for takeoff again.My Runway 'Closed' placard was in place where it should have been. I was expecting it to take longer for the departure sector to call back; and was more focused on getting [Aircraft X] departed. My scan was effective but needed to have been done before clearing aircraft for takeoff.Scan before you clear.




Synopsis: A Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff with a vehicle on the runway. The Controller noticed the vehicle was still on the runway and instructed the aircraft to hold but the aircraft had crossed the hold line.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G OPF
ATC / advisory: CTAF OPF
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were coming to OPF on a night-VFR cross-country in a C172. Our aircraft had operating lights and equipment. While around 10 NM northwest of OPF; we began monitoring frequency and made radio calls which stated our location and intention to maneuver for the left downwind for Runway 12. As we proceeded towards the airport; we continued to make numerous position reports on the CTAF frequency at regular intervals to include the pattern entry. The only other aircraft reporting were 2 helicopters to the east of the field. We proceeded eastbound and then joined the 45 degree downwind entry to Runway 12.After descending from pattern altitude on approximately final around 800 FT; we had an aircraft cross underneath our aircraft. I estimated that the aircraft was approximately 300 FT below us. This particular aircraft made no previous radio calls on the frequency. They then reported an approximate 1.5 mile final for Runway 12. After seeing the aircraft we stopped our descent and began climbing until safety was assured and we continued inbound towards Runway 12.In the meantime; I queried the aircraft to see if they were aware of our presence and I then repeated our intentions to land on Runway 12. Once they were clear of the runway we landed. Once both aircraft were on the ground the other aircraft advised they had been on an IFR flight plan and ATC advised them that we were westbound. We gave them our tail number and taxied back to the ramp. Once on the ground I advised our Flight School of the scenario that occurred.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot and her student returning from a night cross country and making position/intention reports were turning final in the pattern to land on Runway 12 at OPF when an IFR arriving aircraft passed approximately 300 FT beneath them inbound to the same runway. Both aircraft were C172s.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Since [a few years ago]; I have used on occasion a company issued LED Black light; Inspecting Rolls Royce engine components and have been recently informed that No Engineering Variance was issued for the use of these Lights.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Inspector reports using LED Ultraviolet type lights for Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) of Rolls Royce Engine parts for more than two years; believing an Engineering Variance had been issued to allow the use of the LED lights.