elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202005
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On this flight; my first flight worked since the introduction of mandatory masks I found it incredibly difficult to address the non-compliance of many passengers with the mandatory mask requirement based on the guidelines provided; even after reviewing them thoroughly several days before. Many passengers boarding the aircraft were not wearing masks and instead holding them in their hands; some of them stating that they didn't know it is now a mandatory requirement; though I was told announcements were made at the gate.The verbiage in the guidelines need to be more clear on what; if anything; can be done for non-compliance of passengers wearing masks on board the aircraft. I think that there should be a clearer approach to dealing with this new mandatory mask requirement as well as the non-compliance that will follow. I feel that having a more cohesive approach from both Ground Personnel and flight attendants will reduce the non-compliance in a non-confrontational way.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported difficulty and confusion with guidelines when trying to enforce the mandatory mask requirement.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Company Air Carrier Job Card 29-10-04 Electrical Motor Brushes-Replacement/Discard; Steps 20-42 are RII when the job card is performed for the express intent to replace the brushes in the Electrical Motor Driven Hydraulic Pump (EDMP). This job card is normally issued during Routine Overnight (RON) Maintenance to Company Aircraft Technicians; many of whom have performed the removal and installation of the EDMP. On the other hand; if an aircraft is AOG at an Outstation due to an inoperative Hydraulic EDMP; where no Company Technicians are present; the Removal and Replacement (R/R) of the component is not an RII Item as per Company General Maintenance Manual (GMM) Chapter 4; Section 6; Required Inspection Items. This disparity seems to be backward; whereas; the opportunity for improper installation and torques would most likely exist with an on-call Maintenance provider that is unfamiliar with our company's high regard for safety and professionalism. I ask that the task of replacing the EDMP be added to the RII list in the GMM; requiring a certified person to oversee the procedure in Base; or at an Outstation; or that the RII requirement be removed from Job Card 29-10-04. The need for the Inspection is non-existent if you will allow an on-call Technician to perform the work without any oversight.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) questions why an RII Inspection is required when their Base Maintenance technicians replace an Electric Driven Hydraulic Motor Pump (EDMP) on their ERJ aircraft; but not required for an on-call Maintenance Provider Technician at an Outstation.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pitot/static failure that led to an Air Data Computer shutdown. Did not have accurate air speed or vertical speed and lost all instruments at various times.ATC helped me to get to VMC and then safely land at ZZZ1.I believe the root cause was the plane being exposed to heavy rain; high humidity and then temperatures significantly below freezing in a short period of time. The condensation froze and partial blockage of the pitot system resulted.Lessons learned; the plane will be hangared during very cold or inclement weather.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported encountering loss of Air Data Computer resulting in loss of all instruments at various times.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; Turbulence; 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was an uneventful take off. I was handed off to approach by tower. A controller vectored me left. The airplane was on autopilot and I dialed in a left heading. The plane started turning to the commanded heading. Moment[s] later; a different controller came on frequency and told me to disregard and turn right to an assigned heading. This was dialed into the autopilot. About four minutes later; the first controller came back on frequency and abruptly tells me to turn left to an assigned heading. This is programmed into the autopilot. The plane starts turning. Immediately thereafter the different controller comes on and says to disregard instructions and turn right to an assigned heading. This is put into the autopilot; the plane starts turning.Moment[s] later the second controller came back on frequency and said to immediately turn right with urgency in his voice. Simultaneously I got an audible and visual traffic alert on my Garmin 600 EFIS. Since the plane was already in a standard bank turn. I had to disengage the autopilot and manually steepen the turn in IMC and turbulent conditions. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. The first controller never came back on frequency. When I landed; I called the watch commander of the TRACON. He apologized for the incident and confirmed that the first controller was a trainee. I asked him why they would be training somebody in the busiest airspace on earth at night in IMC. He informed me that this is standard. In terms of preventing this in the future; I think the only solution I have is to avoid New York at night with IMC. I obviously have no control over the vectors I am given by ATC or the experience of the assigned controllers.




Synopsis: C441 pilot reported a TRACON Controller in training issued several turns in the wrong direction; which had to be corrected by an instructor. The incorrect vectors caused a traffic conflict.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Escape Slide
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During my before start flow on the door/oxy page I found that the over-wing exits were not 'ARMED' Maintenance was summoned and after much investigation it was discovered that the airplane was taken out of storage a few days prior. When the airplanes are 'mothballed' a pin is installed in the blow bottle for the slide so that they are not inadvertently deployed. What I find disturbing is this airplane was being flown for a number of days with the over-wing exits unarmed! Very unsafe and illegal.Nothing causal just our normal flows/procedures. In these trying times we have pay special attention to proper N numbers; logbook numbers match; databases are up to date etc.Slow down! Look over the release; do a thorough preflight check. Make sure Maintenance has put the proper notations in the logbook i.e. gear pins removed; pitot static covers removed and Emergency Exit window bottle pins removed!


Second narrative: During before start flows we identified that the over-wing exit slides were not armed. We called Maintenance and they troubleshot the problem. After multiple circuit breaker resets Maintenance appeared to open the exits and then the slides were armed and the exits doors reset. Maintenance documented the procedure in the AML and said that they 'reset the system.'It's possible the aircraft flew several times without the over-wing exit slides being armed.


Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the over-wing doors were not armed and the aircraft had been flown for several days in this condition. The aircraft had recently come from storage and the escape slides had not been enabled for deployment by Maintenance.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B MSY
ATC / advisory: Ground MSY
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; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Taxiing into MSY for the first time ATC was routing aircraft into and out of the gates. Our instructions were to taxi into Company gate. There was an aircraft parked on the taxiway at the top of the alley where there were two lines to taxi into gates; the Company gate being on the west side of the alley. The aircraft parked at the top of the alley was creating a safety obstruction from standard taxi while safely on the dedicated taxi line. Ground Control was aware of the waiting aircraft position but was requiring aircraft to deviate off Taxiway G and to cut between the taxiway and the ramp. Aircraft had to transition off G to either alley line 2; 3; or 4 to transition into the gate. The same with pushback and taxi out. Safety clearance and expectation from Ground were to deviate from standard taxi procedures. An awareness is needed here to correct this.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being instructed to taxi to the gate via a non-standard procedure that required taxiing off the taxiway.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CPK.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I filed an IFR flight plan from CPK to ZZZ via the ForeFlight app. The weather was 400 BKN; 1;300 OVC with 7 miles visibility. When ready for departure from RWY 23; I contacted Norfolk Approach via the RCO. The pertinent part of the clearance was 'enter controlled airspace on a 230 heading; radar vectors HPW...' Of note is the fact that when the controller is talking over the RCO; they apparently for some reason key the mic and speak a few words; then unkey the mic for a brief moment; before re-keying the mic and talking for a few more words before unkeying the mic again. This procedure seems to clip off the first syllable of each new transmission. For instance; if the controller intended to give the phonetic spelling for a waypoint such as RIC.... the transmission might come across as 'meo India Charlie.' I don't think this had anything to do with my error; but I think it is worth mentioning. On climbout I contacted Norfolk Approach. Here are the transmissions as near as I can remember them: 'Norfolk Approach; Aircraft X off Chesapeake climbing out of 700 on a 230 heading'. 'Aircraft X; radar contact; climb and maintain 3;000; Norfolk altimeter 29.95' Response 'climb and maintain 3;000; and 29.95; Aircraft X'. After flying on the 230 heading for a minute I began to question in my mind as to whether the controller had forgotten about me flying off on a heading that was about 90 degrees off from my clearance route to HPW. I thought to myself; 'Is he expecting me to turn towards HPW?' And here is where a simple call to ATC would have been in order to clarify any uncertainty on my part...but incorrectly I turned towards HPW without contacting the controller. It wasn't long before the controller contacted me to make me aware of my error. Of course I should have stayed on the 230 heading until given radar vectors or further clearance. At the controller's direction; I returned to my 230 heading until given further radar vectors. Perhaps my desire to start heading in the right direction was a factor as the weather generally improved to the northwest. I pride myself on being a careful and exacting pilot; and this was plain and simple a mistake...one that I hope to never repeat. If in doubt about the routing; simply ask for confirmation.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a communication breakdown with ATC led to a heading deviation.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We took off at maximum gross weight. The Captain was flying. As we reduced to climb thrust I noticed an Airbus 320 that had departed Runway 1C in a sharp right turn. I told the Captain to 'watch out for traffic on the left; it looks like they are turning towards us.' A moment later it looked as if this aircraft was still in the turn towards our aircraft and at that moment Tower advised us of the aircraft and said they were not complying with their clearance and told us to stop our climb at 2;000. Then Tower told us to stop our climb at our current altitude; 1;500 FT and at that moment we received a 'descend' RA from TCAS. We climbed as high as 1;700 FT in our efforts to stop our climb and comply with ATC and the RA. As we leveled we were told to turn right to heading 090 and maintain altitude. I looked up and saw the Airbus A320 pass overhead in a climb passing 2;000 FT. We were then told to continue our right turn to heading 190. I saw the A320 pass off our right side and saw it was safe vertically to continue the turn and then noticed the foreign crew start a left turn towards the north. We continued south until we were clear of the conflict and were issued a climb then another turn towards the north and then on course. Our cockpit was very busy trying to avoid a collision. ATC was great keeping us away from the rising terrain to the north. I spoke to another pilot who was flying out at the time we departed and he informed me that ATC was having communication problems with this same flight while they were on the ground; ATC telling them the same clearance four or five times to get them to comply with their clearance. It seems that the major problem was a confused foreign crew without the required ability to understand and communicate in the English language as required.




Synopsis: A B767-300 flight crew departing had a conflict with a foreign air carrier A320 departing a parallel runway and making an unauthorized right hand turn. ATC advised and TCAS issued a 'Descend' RA. The reporter later learned the A320 flight crew was having communications problems with ATC prior to departure seemingly the result of a language barrier.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon returning from a one hour scenic flight with no one else aboard I was cleared to land on Runway 18. Visibility was good; winds approximately 320/05. Approach on final was stable at 65 KTS; with no discernible effect from the slight quartering wind. As soon as I touched down; I heard a loud bang and felt the plane start to veer right and tilt slightly to the right. I suspected a blow out of the right main tire; but did not know this for certain.I kept the control column back at first to keep the nose up while losing speed and used some left bank; thinking that with a bit of following wind from the right quarter and right gear problem it would keep some pressure off the right side. As the plane slowed and veered to the right; I was prepared to use left rudder; if necessary; to avoid either of the obstacles that I could see that might be in my way [the 2;000 FT marker lighted sign and a runway light] but as the plane slowed and continued to veer right quite gently without seeming to want to nose over or cartwheel; I decided to not use rudder or apply brakes. I felt that; although the wheel problem was slowing me; I was going to have enough momentum to move clear of the runway surface into the grassed safety area. I could also see that of the two sides of the runway to end up on; the right was the preferable side - the safety area there was flat and open; to the left there was a ditch or depression that was narrow and next to that was the ramp with other aircraft. So; my decision was to 'ride it out' with little actual control input; no added power needed to clear the runway; and no use of brakes. However; I wonder if other more experienced pilots have other suggestions as to different control; power or braking inputs that I should have considered.




Synopsis: After his right tire blew out on touchdown a C-172 pilot opted to let the airplane slow to a stop without aggressive control inputs.