elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Other Drone operator
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D SBD
Reporter organization: Other Drone operator
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Today I flew a mission in controlled airspace. I was told by my air ops manager that we were approved to fly in the area. But the air ops manager forgot to mention we were only approved for 50 feet. The mission was to inspect utility poles and transmission lines. I flew to a max altitude of 138 feet in order to take pictures of our asset. I was well within 100 feet of flying the drone. There was no incidents and no aircraft in the area. I realized what happened after when checking LAANCE approval to discover that we only had clearance for 50 feet.




Synopsis: A Drone operator flying in Class D airspace exceeded the altitude they were approved to operate.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching RIC; we were expecting the visual approach to Runway 2. We were speaking to PCT at 2;000 FT. We were given direct to the airport. I had noticed that we were 5 miles from the airport with no approach clearance. Upon reaching 4 miles from the airport; we were cleared for the visual approach to Runway 2; after calling it in sight. However; we were approaching the airport at 200 KTS and not configured for landing. After getting configured and making our own vectors; we were on a left base for Runway 2; but too close to make an approach to landing; so we told Tower we were going to execute an S turn thru final to lose altitude. The Tower Controller then cleared us for a left base and clearance to land for Runway 34. We accepted that and continued to Runway 34. While on the base to final turn; we realized that this approach was also not going to work as we were way too close. I then told the Captain that we should go around; so I executed the go around and we made a normal visual pattern and approach to Runway 2 afterwards. Cause; the fact that we were being vectored directly to the airport; at night; rather than to an approach fix was a threat. This prevented us from making an appropriate turn and developing a plan to get set up for the landing; especially since we were not cleared for the visual approach until inside of 5 miles. Additionally; we were about 45 degrees away from either of the landing runways rather than being directly lined up. Finally; realization of all of this should have happened sooner so we could have queried the Controller; thus our planning was poor.




Synopsis: Air Carrier landing RIC was vectored direct to the airport at night and cleared for a visual approach less than five miles from the airport resulting in a go around; Controller technique was listed as a causal factor.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GEG.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Stratotanker 135
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C GEG; Class E GEG
ATC / advisory: TRACON GEG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was training someone on West Radar as Aircraft X departed SKA on the West Climb; climbing to 050. Aircraft X checked on; and was radar identified. When the trainee was ready to turn Aircraft X to the downwind; Aircraft X did not respond. Aircraft X was not able to be reached for the next 20 miles. During that time; Aircraft X entered a 059 MVA at 050. The trainee attempted to reach Aircraft X on guard; on multiple frequencies; and through a company helicopter that was maneuvering in the area. Aircraft X was unable to be reached through any of these methods. Aircraft X eventually checked back on and said they had a 'comm' issue. I recommend a more extensive dialog and collaboration between SKA and GEG. It is important that aircraft departing SKA have an understanding of how these situations can affect our workload. I believe controllers from both facilities and SKA pilots would benefit from more inter-facility dialogs.




Synopsis: GEG Controller reported KC135 departed; lost radios then entered subsequent higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I received a call from (B FA) informing me of a foul odor in the aft galley. She described the odor as moldy. I went to the back to check on the odor. The odor was confined to the aft galley area. To me; it smelled like air that had been released from an old tire. B FA and C FA said they did not notice the smell until after we had taken off and was around 10;000 feet. I informed the Captain of the situation. The smell did not last very long. I went to the back galley on a few occasions throughout the flight and never noticed the smell after the first time.




Synopsis: Flight attendants reported a fume event in passenger cabin during cruise which dissipated and did not return.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Pit Compartment
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft arrived with notice of an inoperative rear [cargo] pit system. We were aware of the inoperative system; but not of the condition. There were 2 straps completely off and laying in the pit. The Velcro was completely torn up and the Styrofoam pieces are all over the mat that is left. The broken carpet is halfway through the pit and the pit was fully loaded with 90 inbound bags all the way to the bulkhead. There is no power stow; so 3 people have to download a broken pit. It is completely unsafe and very dangerous. I informed my lead and he came up to help us and when we were finished; I informed my supervisor. I am concerned that someone will get very hurt working a flight in this manner.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported discovering bags in an inoperative and damaged cargo pit.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ1.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ2
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on a visual approach to ZZZ XXR; with high gusty winds and wake turbulence experienced; aircraft dipped below published altitude while on automation. We began correcting as ATC called out an Altitude Alert on us. We climbed back to published altitude and flew the rest of the approach without incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an altitude excursion from published altitude during approach in gusty wind conditions that also included a wake turbulence encounter. Pilot corrected back to published altitude and completed a safe landing without incident.
Date: 202107
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The flight crew was concerned about an deferral used for a flight deck door peep hole. [Maintenance] was notified and determined that the flight deck door peep hole can not be placed on MEL or NEF. [Maintenance] created an [work order] to repair the door.




Synopsis: Technician reported a misapplied NEF item for a damaged cockpit door peephole was discovered to be not authorized and was changed to a repair order with the aircraft taken out of service.
Date: 201810
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying ORD with ZZZ as an alternate. We were outside the final approach fix to 27R beginning the configuration process when we noticed the following [traffic] go around. The weather was at least 20 north of the field so I didn't think anything of it. We were fully configured and got a reactive wind shear warning and went around (disclaimer the Captain was convinced it was predictive WS however I don't recall the aircraft saying WS ahead). I followed the [applicable] guidance then cleaned up afterwards. ATC provided zero help; initially they asked if we needed help but a few seconds later changed their minds on heading and altitude at least 5 times (maybe more) increasing our workload significantly. At one point; we were climbing to 5;000 and they asked for a level off at 4 when we were passing through 3;700 (and obviously overshot it) and I disconnected the AP and lowered the nose. With the AP back on we decided to divert to ZZZ1; our planned ALT was on the other side of the weather and both of us didn't want to fly that direction. The CA (Captain) gave me the plane and spoke to dispatch and let them know of our intentions; get weather and NOTAMS and request landing data. We landed uneventfully on XXR with zero landing data (we [alerted] min fuel; had no time to wait around for dispatch to send it to the aircraft). We landed in ZZZ1 with 4.3 and taxied to a remote pad where we were refueled.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported an altitude overshoot due to ATC issuing several heading and altitude changes during heavy workload missed approach.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Speed (Rate Sensing)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IAS DISAGREE and MASTER CAUTION warning near initial rotation. There was about 20 KT to 50 KT disagreements between the left and right airspeed indications I turned off automation and flew the aircraft for a downwind vector for ILS 34. [I] completed the Memory Items as pilot flying. Had the First Officer declare an emergency for overweight landing; Airspeed Disagree; and requested AARF equipment. Completed the other required checklists. Landed and had AARF command inspected the aircraft tires and brakes. [There was a] history of airspeed disagree in logbook.


Second narrative: [Narraitve 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B737-800 IAS and MASTER CAUTION alerted near rotation speed on takeoff because of a 20 KT to 50 KT left to right airspeed indicator difference so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll while training a Multi Engine Instructor (MEI) in a standardization course; Left Hand Engine RPM exceeded limits. Instructor Pilot-in-training reduced power lever and it went to normal (which is normal procedure). When he reestablished full power it returned to abnormal range but we reached Vr and rotated. Instructor Pilot conducting training took flight controls to check the condition and confirmed it was a malfunction. Thus requested a return to the field for landing. After a few minutes; when it was confirmed that even with significantly reduced thrust; the engine was still malfunctioning; [we advised ATC] and landed. Did not shut it down because the engine was still producing useful thrust. Landing was uneventful; and taxied back to the ramp.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported loss of engine thrust; causing a return to the departure airport for a precautionary landing.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: O61.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: CTAF O61
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the flight instructor on a training flight with a new student. We entered the traffic pattern at O61 with a left 45 entry for Runway 13. We had made a radio call on CTAF for the 45 and for downwind when the military trainer called that he was going to back taxi into position for 13 (no parallel taxiway available). We responded that we would extend the downwind leg to make space for him. We then made our radio calls for turning base and final. The trainer began his takeoff roll; and transmitted that he was departing 13; and would make a turn back over the airport (no indication of at what altitude). I transmitted that we were on short final. As we were in the flare on 13; the trainer made a very low altitude right 90 degree turn followed by a left 270 and lined up with the runway; descending quickly toward the runway that we had touched down on. Since he had had his landing gear up; and was using a smoke system; I was becoming sure that he was attempting a flyby (opposite direction). I transmitted that we were still on the runway. The trainer went directly over our aircraft at very high speed; clearing us by about 50 feet. The pilot apologized and said that he had not heard our transmissions. Another person at the airport indicated later that he had heard all of our radio calls; so the radio issue must have been with the other aircraft. There was no damage or incident.




Synopsis: An instructor on short final to O61 Runway 13 made the appropriate CTAF position calls but after touchdown were overflown by an opposite direction antique military trainer whose pilot stated he had not heard the previous calls before his takeoff.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Experienced gradual electrical failure in flight. Lost communications with Center and squawked 7600 for approximately one minute before total electrical loss. Began turn back to departure airport in VFR conditions at 16;000 feet (assigned altitude). Began descent to airport and to acquire cell signal to notify Center and company. Regained power and resolved issue after turn back to airport at approximately 14;500 feet MSL. Once avionics came back online I could hear Center asking other aircraft for help contacting us; so I immediately contacted Center and they redirected me back to 16;000 feet and back direct to destination. No other issues after regaining electrical power.




Synopsis: BE9 pilot experiences a gradual power loss at 16;000 feet resulting in lost communications and the decision to return VFR to the departure airport. During descent electrical power is regained and Center is contacted; allowing the flight to continue to destination.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter function: Approach; Coordinator
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X was on heading direct to ZZZ [VOR] at 3;000 feet and cleared for a visual approach; Aircraft Y was on the [Runway] XXR Localizer for ZZZ [Airport] and descending to 3;000 feet. Conflict alert activated and I noticed Aircraft X turned east directly towards Aircraft Y. I turned Aircraft Y to a 090 heading to avoid. This incident occurred because Sector 1 and Sector 2 and Finals where combined with too much volume to safely run the amount of traffic at the time. At the time we had no one on break do to having the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) opened and reduced staffing levels for COVID. We should have flexibility to close SFRA and open a radar position that would alleviate sectors being overloaded.




Synopsis: ATC TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict and cited short staffing levels due to COVID-19 scheduling as a contributing factor.