elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative: Lead Mechanic assigned myself; Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) X and two other AMTs; Y and Z; to Task Card XXX002 with attached Engineering Change/ Repair Authorization (EC/RA) to secure and torque the R/H main landing gear side stay bushing. Lead Mechanic went to Hangar-B to secure a torque wrench; I cleaned and prepped the side stay and the attach points on the main landing gear. AMT Y ordered the sealant needed for the job. We briefly reviewed the paperwork with [Lead Mechanic] and he told us the torque was 500 foot pounds. We started with 440 foot pounds but could not get any of the tabs to line up. I think we advance the torque setting to 480 foot pounds one time and could not get any tabs to line up. We then advanced the torque setting to the maximum of 500 foot pounds and still could not get any tabs to line up. We backed off the nut and re-torqued it at least 3-4 more times with an inspector present and were never able to align any of the tabs. We discussed our dilemma with the midnight shift supervisor and he turned over the job to midnight shift Mechanic X. Midnight AMT X reviewed the paperwork and pointed out that the paper read 500 lbf. in. It was obvious to us at that point that we had over torqued the side stay bushing. I believe that lbf. in (pounds force inches) is very confusing and led to our mistake in applying the proper torque for the job. Perhaps lb.in. (pound inches) or spelling out foot pounds or inch pounds would be clearer.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports how misinterpretation of an A320 aircraft Job Card reference contributed to the right-hand Main Landing Gear (MLG) side stay bushing retaining nut having a final torque twelve times greater than specified. Issue involves Airbus abbreviations for Pounds Force Inches (lbf) (in.) versus more common reference of lb. in. for Foot Pounds inches.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
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
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While pushing back from gate; the Captain began to feel lightheaded and shaky. Symptoms got somewhat worse and did not abate during taxi out. Captain drank orange juice; ate some crackers; and held the aircraft at the [runway] hold short to see if he would begin to feel better. After several minutes the Captain decided that he was not fit to fly this leg and returned to the gate to be replaced. These symptoms were most certainly caused by low blood sugar as a result of a strenuous workout at the hotel and the Captain failing to eat enough food during the day. A contributing factor was that due to the five hour flight; the Captain lost track of the time of day and failed to realize that it was past midnight body time and he was long overdue for a meal. Preventative Measures: This was a case of the Captain enjoying a strenuous workout and being made ill by an insidious combination of exercise; lack of food; a long day; and not recognizing the late hour of day due to multiple time zone changes. It was an embarrassing situation really; and one from which the Captain learned many lessons. In terms of ASAP applicability; sometimes it's easy to forget in this job what strange situations we place our body in. We don't always sleep as well as we want to in hotels. Even when we attempt to sleep long; we often wake at the time that would be normal at home. This was the case today. We then eat and workout at the hotel on a fairly normal schedule; but the day turns strange when we report in the middle of the afternoon for a long PM duty period. A long haul flight to the west coast keeps us in bright sunlight even though our bodies know it to be well into the night. If we are not careful to keep ourselves properly fueled and hydrated the awkward and inconvenient situation described here can occur.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported returning to the gate after feeling ill on taxi-out; probably related to low blood sugar.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Today at ORD we were on a ILS PRM 10R Approach. I kept hearing chatter on the Monitor frequency. So much it was distracting from listening to approach control. I told approach there was some chatter on Monitory frequency. They had no response. We determined on final approach it was the Tower Transmitting on both the Tower Frequency plus the Monitor Frequency. These were normal clearances. Again; very distracting and seem to pose a safety risk in our view. We would be listening for break out instructions; instead we heard constant normal clearance transmissions. It was to the point I had to turn off the monitory frequency momentarily to be able hear the primary frequency. We queried the tower regarding these transmissions. We received a TART Response 'That's what we do here!'I NEVER hear anything on a Monitor frequency at other locations while conducting a PRM approach; unless they are testing the frequency. I am happy to offer ORD ATC Controllers to ride in our jump seat to see the operation from our end. Ask ATC to keep the monitor frequency clear so flight crews can listen breakout instructions.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported being distracted by duplicate Tower radio transmissions on the Monitor frequency while conducting a PRM approach.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: WVI.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: CTAF WVI; TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While IFR (IMC) on the VOR/DME A approach at WVI; I had to take evasive action to avoid an aircraft that I couldn't even see. I was IMC and descending on the final segment of the approach to the MDA. My TCAS indicated traffic 300 feet below me and less than a mile; and I was still IMC. I immediately initiated a climb until the traffic showed that it was behind me. I had made multiple calls on the uni-comm frequency; and after this very close encounter made another telling the aircraft that had come frighteningly close that we almost met 'face to face.' A response of 'sorry' was acknowledged and the aircraft said they were just running over to Salinas (SNS) below the clouds. The issue I have is that I was still IMC and the TCAS showed the aircraft as only 300 feet below me; indicating that the aircraft was not maintaining proper clearance with cloud bases. The conditions were reported as 1500 overcast with ten miles visibility under the overcast. This is a very typical summer weather pattern with the coastal fog. 'Scud running' is far too common at WVI and when IFR aircraft are making an approach with VFR traffic not following proper cloud clearance; it makes for a dangerous situation. We had already been told to switch to the uni-comm frequency by Norcal; so Norcal was not in a position to provide additional guidance. The reason I present this is because there is a culture of non-compliance at the WVI airport and the FAA does not respond to documented concerns. As an example; there are skydivers jumping through the fog nearby and the FAA refuses to do anything about it. Proper education of aviators and proper supervision by the FAA is what is needed. We sorely lack both.




Synopsis: CE550 Captain in IMC on approach to WVI experiences a TCAS alert for traffic 300 feet below and pulls up. It would therefore not be possible for the VFR traffic to be 500 feet below the cloud bases.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying from ZZZ to ZZZ1 the Propeller Heat System Failed. I was still climbing through a layer which appeared to top at about 24000 feet. I was assessing the warning and CAWS (Central Advisory and Warning System) indicating that the Prop Heat failed and following the QRH; when the autopilot began banking the aircraft to the right and nose down. I disconnected the autopilot and hit the trim interrupt switch to ensure to have full control over the aircraft. Once I was back straight and level; ATC inquired why we had descended and if we were okay. I was able to climb out of icing and proceeded back on course.




Synopsis: PC-12 Pilot reported the Propeller Heat System failed while climbing through icing conditions causing a temporary loss of control.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ; we received a DOOR EMER LH OPEN Master Warning. We ran the appropriate QRH checklist. Pressurization was normal; but after talking with the flight attendants I determined that while they were familiar with the EMB-190; they weren't fully confident about the exact marks referenced in the QRH. I had them bring a deadheading EMB-190 Captain into the conversation; and it was determined that neither of the green locked indication marks for the left -hand over wing exit door were visible. The visibility of these marks is a decision point in the QRH and the absence of the green indicators leads to a descent to 10;000 feet; a pressurization dump of the cabin; and a Land at Nearest Suitable clause. As we had significant tailwinds on the flight; by the time we received word from the cabin that the marks were not visible and consulted Dispatch; we were at our Equal Time Point from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and it was decided to continue to ZZZ1. We advised ATC; descended to 10;000 feet and depressurized the cabin per the QRH. Subsequent approach and landing were uneventful.We kept the airplane for our next flight and were present during the lengthy maintenance process. It was determined that the door was out of rig and had to be significantly adjusted. The door was able to physically move in and out a small amount while locked in place.




Synopsis: EMB-190 Captain reported a DOOR EMER LH OPEN Master Warning during climbout.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JAX.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On IFR flight at 4;000 ft.; approximately 10 nm. west of FIN (within A-293); we narrowly missed colliding with Aircraft Y. ATC and flight crew had been monitoring the aircraft for a few min at our altitude as it drifted to close proximity several times. Then Aircraft Y turned head-on so we diverted right to avoid; when suddenly they turned again into our path. Instructor Pilot took controls and dived left as Aircraft Y continued turning into our original flight path (near miss at approximately 500 ft. apart laterally). Once separated we continued per our flight plan with no further disruption.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported an NMAC with another light aircraft during cruise.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in ZZZ; seated in the gate area; waiting for the inbound aircraft for our flight; the inbound captain approached me in the gate area and began briefing me on the status of the aircraft. The captain stated to me that the ailerons were 'extremely tight' and required more force than normal to control the aircraft. I asked if he had written it up or put anything in the logbook and he answered 'no'; but did give a detailed brief of his concerns to a mechanic now onboard the aircraft. Once I arrived onboard; I learned that a maintenance supervisor was now involved; boarding was held; and that the report was being taken very seriously and investigated. After talking with the mechanics onboard and raising my concerns for the safety of this aircraft; I decided to put a writeup in the logbook referencing what the inbound captain had told me of the ailerons being extremely tight and that it may be difficult to control the aircraft especially in a crosswind situation. The aircraft was taken out of service and we were swapped to a new plane for our flight.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they were advised by inbound crew of a stiff aileron condition; but did not write it up. Local Maintenance took the aircraft out of service.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The sector to the south of me was coming out of the hold for ZZZ. ZZZ1 sector pointed out an aircraft in a right hand turn out of the holding stack back on course at FL370. I accepted the point out via automated means. No further coordination was accomplished and ZZZ1 sector descended the aircraft to FL310 while still in my airspace. No further call was made. This is a growing problem and has been ever since automated point outs where introduced. Controller(s) take accepting an automated pointout as blanket control.I've filed numerous reports on this issue and still nothing has been done. The definition of a pointout has not changed. If I accept an automated point out; I'm accepting what the data block and route of flight is showing. I am not giving away control of that plane. Further education or briefings need to take place before an accident occurs. This happens on a daily basis.




Synopsis: ZOB ARTCC Controller reported a violation of a point out; when another Controller descended an aircraft without permission.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were pulling onto the gate in ZZZ. As we approached both the First Officer and I verbally stated that the clear area was clear and everything was behind the line. As we approached the gate and while I was on the guidance system; at approximately 40 feet remaining; I noticed movement out of my left peripheral vision. I glanced over to my amazement there was now a white [company] crew cab pickup truck; with 'Stores' marked on it that had parked inside the clear area and was in front of my left wing. I stopped the airplane; that's how I remembered we were at 40 feet; made a PA to the passengers to remain seated and signaled to the ramp crew that the truck would have to be removed. The driver was flagged down by the ramp crew and he returned and moved the truck. The amazing thing is that this truck maneuvered around a taxing airplane to park in front of my left wing. The entire truck was over the red line; if I would have continued forward I believe that my wing would have passed over the truck. How can anyone driving on the flight line think it is OK to pass a taxing airplane onto a gate and stop in front of it; get out and leave the area?I can only assume gross incompetence of the driver.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that a pickup truck maneuvered and parked in front of the aircraft during arrival at the gate.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Traffic was busy; there were more than 5 planes in the pattern when approach handed us off to tower. The approach phase was uneventful; the incident mentioned occurred after our landing. Spacing got really tight between us and a Seminole before we exited the first taxiway from the runway; I turned around and saw a Seminole in ground effect about to land maybe 600 feet or so away from us before we got a chance to exit the runway and join the taxiway. This runway incursion should have never happened. Had tower asked us to slow down and put the faster Seminole in front of us; had the pilot for the Seminole performed a go around; or even if tower had cancelled their landing clearance. Had I taken even 5-10 more seconds to exit the runway I believe that plane would have hit me.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported an aircraft landed behind them on the runway before they had exited the runway.