elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other N/A
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Reported to work at XA25 local. Had a return to the gate due to mechanical problem. Maintenance could not fix the problem before our Crew Critical Off time. We were reassigned to go to hotel and get 9 hours of rest and return the next day. I got to Hotel at XG30 and noticed my room was Hot. I called the Front Desk and was informed that only heating was available to all rooms and was told to open a window. I could not get the proper rest I needed as my room was hot and also my body was set to fly all night. I called the Crew Desk at XA15 local and reported Fatigued as I only had 1 solid hour of sleep at this point and was not going to be fit for duty.


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


Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported calling in fatigued after cancellation the previous day; being unable to rest due to no air conditioning at the hotel and changed circadian rhythm.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew [advised ATC] after takeoff. Air turn back to [departure airport] due ADC issues. Crew did not need any assistance but we contacted Tower to verify nature of emergency.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an A300 flight returned to departure airport because of an Air Data Computer issue.
Date: 202007
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight; Taxi; Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have observed since the face coverings became mandatory that communication is hampered which presents a safety issue. Anytime an FA makes a PA while wearing the masks it makes it difficult to comprehend what they are saying. Same goes for briefing the OWWE (Overwing Window Exit) or whenever we are trying to communicate with passengers. Communication is an important part of our safety related interactions with passengers and I have seen that this is almost impossible with face coverings. This is not flight specific; but an observation I have made over the last month of regular flying. Same goes for when the Captain is giving us a pre-flight briefing. If they are wearing a mask it is difficult to understand what they are saying. Not because they can't be heard but because the message comes out muffled.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported communication issues related to wearing a face mask.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Tower, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Passenger
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On departure from DCA as gear came up the aircraft right wing dipped 25 deg due to wake turbulence.  The wake turbulence was confirmed by the pilots. The severity of the wing dip is the reason I am submitting as a passenger as this was a close call to a major mishap. With wing deflection as great as occurred at low altitude the only thing that prevented a mishap was the rapid correction displayed by the pilots. I am unaware of ATC takeoff clearance and any cautions. I am unaware of the type aircraft departing prior to our departure and the time interval. I am.also unaware of the winds and direction. I only observed the result of the wake turbulence and felt compelled to report it.




Synopsis: Air carrier passenger reported noticing a wake turbulence encounter departing DCA airport.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Exhaust Pipe
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I performed a 100-hour inspection on a Piper PA28-140 aircraft. I found the exhaust system to be in an unairworthy condition. Inspection Authorized (IA) Technician chose to ignore my findings and signed the aircraft as Airworthy.The exhaust had a dent in a pipe that was deemed unairworthy according to Piper Cherokee service manual. This ultimately led to the failure of the exhaust system; resulting in an in-flight Emergency.

Callback: Reporter stated he was flying the Piper Cherokee when the Inflight Emergency occurred shortly after takeoff. Initially there was a smell; as if something was burning; possibly oil. He looked at the Oil Temperature gauge and noticed the temperature had pegged out beyond red line. Within two minutes he encountered smoke; fumes and most likely carbon monoxide pouring into the cockpit. Luckily; there was a small fold down window on the pilot's side drawing some of the smoke and fumes out. He immediately returned to his departure field.Reporter stated he checked the engine compartment after the in-flight incident and noticed the exhaust duct had sheared right after the collector box; near the original dent that he had previously noted. Even though he had found the dent prior to the inflight event; the IA Inspector had much more experience and so he decided not to argue with the Inspector.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports finding a dented exhaust duct on a Piper PA28-140 aircraft during a 100-hour inspection. His concerns about the unairworthy duct per the Piper Cherokee service manual were ignored by an Inspection Authorized (IA) Inspector. The Exhaust duct failed shortly after takeoff; causing smoke and fumes in the cockpit; resulting in an in-flight emergency.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on Low RADAR. Our primary RADAR was out of service. We were using CENRAP. CENRAP requires enroute separation; more coordination between Tower and RADAR and training was in progress (both in our Tower and us on low RADAR). The trainee hadn't trained practice approaches with CENRAP before; so this was new territory for him. We didn't have staffing to give us an associate. With all the requirements to separate aircraft by 5 miles and 4 aircraft doing practice approaches at 2 different airports; the trainee got behind. I took over several times to catch him up. In the course of things; a BE40 didn't get a change of frequency to Tower. They had traffic in their pattern. Then when the BE40 was inside the final approach fix he took a turn for another aircraft. This put him in conflict with 2 different aircraft in the airport's pattern. He had his TCAS on and was able to get out of the situation. We brought him back around for another ILS approach. Recommendation: First of all; they took our RADAR out of service the day before during our busiest hours. While working on the RADAR; something broke and they weren't able to restore our RADAR causing us to be on CENRAP 2 days in a row. The fact that we were without normal RADAR services increased our workload with all the aircraft wanting practice approaches both days. Both days we were short staffed due to sickness; jury duty and lack of personnel. RADAR should be worked on during off-peak hours (evenings or weekends) or when we're closed from midnight to 6am. The trainee wouldn't have fallen behind as badly if we'd had an associate to take the calls for release from local; call the inbounds to the airport; issue flight plans to the airport and answer any other calls. He would have been on frequency and not missed some of the details. He wouldn't have fallen behind and had so many problems if we were using approach separation procedures (course divergence; 3 miles; etc).




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an unsafe condition when forced to use CENRAP during training; noting maintenance practices regarding the use of CENRAP should be better planned.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We're under a Federal mandate to maintain a 77% productivity without flight disruptions. The independence of mechanics has been circumvented. The Union cannot promote safety because a judge would consider it a cryptic call to action. Management never talks about safety in the workplace. The workplace is replete with a constant drumbeat of scheduling. The culture at ZZZ is slowly changing to promote scheduling rather than safety.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that Safety is no longer the primary goal.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
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: Were you aware of the other aircraft before the event?      NO XIf so; how?  Visual 0   ATC Traffic Advisory  0   TCAS 0   Other  0What was the position of the OTHER AIRCRAFT; when you encountered wake turbulence?  Level   Flight Level Unknown?  Climbing  Descending  Opposite direction                         Unknown  Feet above?Unk  Miles past  Same direction                         Unknown  Feet above?Unk  Miles in front  Converging                         Unknown  Feet above?Unk  Miles away  Crossing                         Unknown  Feet above ?Unk  Miles in frontBriefly characterize the magnitude of the wake turbulence:ModerateDid you experience VERTICAL ACCELERATION??YES      NO  X    What was the change in ALTITUDE?    No    What was the change in aircraft ATTITUDE? Estimate angle of change in:?PITCH  0        ROLL  40 degrees right   YAW   0   Was there buffeting?                        NO  XWas there stick shake?                      NO  XWas the autopilot engaged?                 YES  X    Was the auto throttle engaged?             YES  X




Synopsis: G-V Captain reported a wake turbulence encounter at FL320 that resulted in an uncommanded 40 degree bank.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the pilot in command doing an instructional flight for my instrument. I made contact with the Tower (ZZZ) about about 7.5 NM W of ZZZ. We had flown for 1.5 hours prior to this near miss and I now had my foggles or view limiting device; removed. Tower instructed [us] to fly southbound. We flew south bound about 4.5 NM NW of the threshold for runway XX at ZZZ. We continued southbound. ZZZ Tower called traffic for us; 11 to 12 o'clock; north bound; altitude indicating 900 feet; type unknown. We responded that we were looking for traffic. Our aircraft is equipped with ADS-B in and out but did not pick up the target. The traffic in question was finally spotted by us at our 10 o'clock quickly turning 9 o'clock. The aircraft passed on our left about 30-40 feet away going 160 knots indicated; per flight aware. I told Tower that I had the traffic in sight but I was stepped on by another aircraft. We were told to fly eastbound and enter the left base for RWY XX. We landed without incident.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the vicinity of ZZZ airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HUF.Tower, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower HUF
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
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; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: At the time of the event I had been on duty four hours and during that time was only able to be on break for 31 minutes. There were 3 controllers on duty; two CPC's and one radar only controller. Due to the staffing we were spending nearly two hours on position every time; and myself and the other CPC would have to immediately slide over and relieve the local controller as soon as we were relieved from approach control. Due to the staffing we were working a TRACAB operation. After conducting OJTI on local and ground combined; I took a short break; approximately 10 minutes; before I was assigned to relieve the radar controller. After working radar for approximately an hour I was relieved from radar and instructed to relieve local without taking a break. I received the briefing for local with Aircraft X in the pattern and Aircraft Y ready for VFR departure on an intersecting runway. I observed Aircraft X on what I thought was the upwind off of Runway 14; I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff on the intersecting runway. Aircraft X advised they were actually on final for Runway 32 and asked if they needed to hold short of the intersecting runway. I cleared Aircraft X to land and hold short of the runway Aircraft Y was departing from. Due to the late LAHSO clearance I was unable to exchange traffic using the correct phraseology for LAHSO operations. There was no loss of separation or runway incursion; but it was a crappy situation for all involved. The fact that Aircraft X was paying attention; and as a locally based aircraft is familiar with our operations; is the only thing that prevented a loss of separation / runway incursion.We desperately need to schedule better staffing. Going from working approach to sliding over and immediately working local; without a break; is bad practice. Even a short break to clear your thoughts and change from the approach control mindset to the local control mindset would be beneficial. We are creating an unsafe situation by intentionally scheduling the bare minimum staffing that allows the facility to stay open.




Synopsis: Controller reports facility staffing issues and working combined positions contributed to a probable loss of separation/runway incursion situation that was prevented by timely questioning of clearance by a locally familiar pilot.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we taxied out we received a final weight manifest. The weight and balance was adjusted in the FMS to reflect the changes published on the manifest. Five minutes after takeoff we received a second 'final weight manifest' time stamped 26 minutes later than the first. The two manifests were 3;324 LBS different. Contacted Dispatch imputed the updated weights and continued to our destination.


Second narrative: The Captain sent a message to Dispatch and asked what was going on. Dispatch contacted Load Planning and sent us the following reply: LOADPLANNING SAYS CUSTOMER SERVICE CHANGED PASSENGER COUNT AFTER YOU WERE AIRBORNE.


Synopsis: An A320 flight crew received a second 'final' weight manifest message while already airborne.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: One runway operation due to construction. Training new controller on north radar combined up with south radar. We were talking about sequencing and spacing for general aviation aircraft following a B737 from the south. Aircraft X was put on a vector heading 260 to maintain 9000 for spacing with the multiple GA aircraft inbound from the north. Aircraft X read back 260 down to 6000 and both trainee and I missed the read back. We then went back to talking about the spacing needed for the previous arrivals. We both noticed the altitude when he was descending through 6500 in a 6500 MVA and told him to climb. I totally missed the read back.Don't assume the pilots are going to read the headings and altitudes back correctly. I think the 260 heading kind of jostled the pilots mind so that is where he got 6000 for his final altitude he read back to us. Complacency is not a good attribute in this career. No harm happened thankfully but it was a wakeup call for me to be more vigilant in getting correct read backs.




Synopsis: BOI TRACON Controller reported a missed read back which almost led to an aircraft descending below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.