elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the first lesson with this student. We planned to stay in the traffic pattern and practice landings. The student preflighted the airplane while I monitored and checked his progress. We taxied to Runway XX and took off entering left traffic. The student had control of the airplane throughout the climb and entered downwind. Abeam the numbers the student put in 10 degrees of flaps and started the descent. On base the student put in 20 degrees of flaps and then he entered full flaps on final. On final the aircraft was just above glideslope so I told the student to take out some power. Once we were over the numbers I told the student to take out all the power. I told the student to increase back pressure to prevent the nose wheel from hitting the ground first. We then hit the ground with our main wheels and bounced back up in the air. We bounced another time and I informed the student that we needed to go-around. The student applied full power; veered off to the left; and pulled back hard on the controls. The aircraft got off the ground again but stalled off the runway and impacted. Once the plane came to a complete stop I told the student to evacuate. He exited through his door and I followed because my door was blocked. I led him away from the airplane until we were picked up. After we were picked up the student and I went to the infirmary to make sure no one was injured. The student and I were released with no issues.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor reports a botched go-around while practicing a landing with a student he had not flown with before. After two bounces the go-around attempt results in a stall and a very hard landing.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SDL.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SDL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had taken the Local position about 15 minutes prior to the incident. The Ground Controller advised me of an aircraft that had taxied out and taken a wrong turn. Ground Control advised me of an aircraft that would be holding short of the runway waiting to cross. At that time a Bonanza advised me he was holding short of the runway ready for departure. I advised Ground Control that since the Aircraft they were taxing went the wrong way; they could wait until my Bonanza departs off. I had a Cessna that was short final for a touch and go. Once I had sufficient spacing; 'Bonanza; Runway 3 cleared for takeoff' the Bonanza read back the runway cleared for takeoff. During this time of day the sun was setting to the southwest and we had the double shades pulled; making it difficult to see the approach end of the runway. My attention was focused to the approach end of the runway; looking for my Bonanza to depart; when I noticed an aircraft pass the tower departing the opposite direction runway. It is my honest assessment that the Cessna did not overfly the Bonanza departing opposite direction given that the Cessna was established in the downwind by the time the Bonanza passed the tower. I felt that complacency on my part was to blame; I should have observed the Bonanza at the approach end of the runway instead of taking his word for it. The pilot couldn't read a compass; read a runway sign depicting which way the runway goes or bother to familiarize himself with an airfield layout. This is a situation that I will probably never see again in my career.I would recommend Flight Progress Strips for all aircraft; hand written half strips for VFR guys. No one departs without one. Strips are not passed until all coordination is complete.




Synopsis: SDL Controller reported a ground conflict between an aircraft conducting a touch and go and another that mistakenly took of on the wrong runway in opposite direction.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Pre-Departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other terminal
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I have been called as shop steward by agents to report unsafe COVID work environment; and I noticed due to short staffing and limited area of check in point also the volume of travelers there is no social distancing and no shields to protect agents from possible exposure to COVID.  Most of international travelers are subject to document check and most are not familiar with kiosk checking; also each passenger is accompanied with several family members which makes it more difficult to deal with the crises. There were only 2 agents assigned for all the passengers and all the crowds with was out of control. All has been reported and requested for more manpower and full service to avoid direct and close contact with passengers.The issue of lack of manpower and enforcing passengers and agents to use the kiosk when there is no protection is serious safety issue during [the] COVID pandemic.I hope this report brings all the safety issues to your attention.




Synopsis: Gate Agent reported concerns with social distancing and lack of manpower in their work environment.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We received our weight and balance report from the Operations Agent; and our performance data through ACARS. Both matched as Version 1. We closed the door; completed checklists; and taxied out for departure. As we taxied onto the runway for takeoff; we received a ding from ACARS. As we were already beginning to accelerate for takeoff; we chose to ignore the ACARS and continue. Once airborne; we checked the ACARS; and we had received Version 2 of the oerformance takeoff data. It had a revised passenger count. I called the Flight Attendants (F/As) and asked them how many passengers we actually had. There count matched the Version 2 Passenger count. We continued the flight uneventfully. I feel the Company's new policy of not having the F/As perform a passenger count to confirm it matches the Operations Agent count is based solely on trying to get the cabin door closed quicker. It is not a rare occurrence to have the actual passenger count mismatch what the Ops Agent says. If there is an emergency; we need to know how many people we have on our aircraft; and with this new policy in place; there is no verification of how many people are actually on the aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving an incorrect passenger count at the gate.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Is it me or do other pilots hate that tiny Primary Flight Display (PFD) in the MAX aircraft?  I think if you took a survey; you would be surprised by the answer.  Here we have these super large screens; yet we have to squint in order to see the numbers on our PFD.  Here is an idea; why not make the PFD in the MAX look like the PFD in the NG; both in size and format.  This way; it does not matter what aircraft we have on our schedule or whether we get an unscheduled aircraft change; we know our PFD will look the same.  Now; I am sure there is some technical reason due to the size of the screen or FAA certification; why the PFD in the MAX looks the way it does.  But from an operator perspective; I am sure it will make no sense. We do not need a Navigational Display that we can enlarge to take up half the cockpit.  What we need is a PFD that we can see when we have that engine failure after V1; MCAS issues; Runaway Stabilizer; Airspeed Unreliable; Unusual Attitude; or any other non-normal situation.  We need a PFD we can clearly see so we can safely accomplish the most important first step in ALL situations: Maintain Aircraft Control.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported the PFD installed in the MAX aircraft is too small and hard to read; posing a safety issue.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Passenger
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were scheduled to deadhead. After the flight was completely boarded and ready for departure the captain asked over the P.A. that everyone deplane due to a current tornado warning in the area. As we were waiting in the terminal everyone's phones received another tornado warning. This time it was accompanied with 2 additional messages asking people to call 911 for life threatening emergencies only. After the agent started boarding the aircraft for the second time everyone's phones received another tornado warning. The agent stopped boarding and disappeared down the Jetway for several minutes. Once back he said everything was OK and continued to board. Since my phone showed the warning lasting for 30 more minutes I decided to dig a little bit deeper. The warning stated that thunderstorms nearby have the possibility to cause tornadoes. The radar showed rotation and ZZZ was in the predicted path for 30 minutes. Take cover now! Yet we couldn't because we were on the aircraft. Prior to boarding the second time many people were commenting on the fact that FAA.gov showed that ZZZ was closed for weather. Also; if one were to log onto the company portal; there was a message on the bottom of the homepage stating that ZZZ has suspended operations until tomorrow. After seeing this message I tried to call Operations Manager for clarification but was unable to get through and my voicemail was not returned. Against my better judgement I decided to get on the plane at the end of the boarding process. Just prior to departure we received our final tornado alert stating that ZZZ was in fact in the path of a possible tornado for an additional 30 minutes. I was later told that all arrivals and departures were halted with the exception of aircraft that had received special permission.As of now; of the 11 flights scheduled to fly to ZZZ1 today only 2 took off. I was not operating this flight so I cannot say for sure; but it did seem like airport operations was pushing for these special authorized flights to go. After looking at weather and the tornado reports; all I could do was tighten my seat belt and pray for the best. This time it ended up working out. However; it could have easily been a very different outcome.




Synopsis: Air carrier deadheading First Officer reported that flights were canceled due to tornadoes reported in the area.
Date: 201702
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B777-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was admiring a Boeing 777-300ER at SFO. I took a picture and then notice something out of safety concern after. I see a CRJ-200 aircraft in the ramp taxi area. The safety concern is the 777-300ER is much longer than the regular wide-body aircraft 777-200 and 787-8 and having an aircraft behind the 777-300ER might be too close of proximity. Also; often cargo freight are usually placed at the aft area of aircraft due to the limited amount of space on the right side of aircraft parked at this specific gate; having an aircraft on the ramp taxi area may cause potential aircraft damage; or injury to ramp service employee. Another safety concern is often when aircraft are on this particular ramp taxi line; the aircraft tail is pointing towards another gate and a vehicle service road. I have a few times got jet blast because the aircraft was beginning to taxi to Alpha taxiway.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent observed a B777-300ER parked at SFO is much longer than previous aircraft parked at that gate and it may interfere with aircraft taxiing behind it towards Taxiway A.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: IAI1125 (Astra)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When flying in cruise the right 'BLEED AIR LEAK' red light came on. We proceeded to perform the checklist and the light did not go off. The checklist says to shutdown the right engine if this light remains ON. We shut down the right engine and declared an emergency. The light went OFF about 8 minutes after the right engine was shutdown. Requested vectors to a close by airport with a long runway and ATC gave us vectors to land at a nearby airport. The approach and landing were uneventful.




Synopsis: An IAI ASTRA Right BLEED AIR LEAK light illuminated and did not extinguish with checklist procedures so the engine was shutdown; an emergency declared and the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In the climb we received ACARS from Dispatch asking if we had received NOTAC from ZZZ Ops. We were advised by Dispatch that we should have received NOTAC from ZZZ for Company HAZMAT (three O2 bottles) onboard. We hadn't and were unaware that we had Company HAZMAT onboard.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being advised during flight by Dispatch of HAZMAT on board. No HAZMAT forms provided with flight release at departure.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MAN.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Check Ride
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G MAN
ATC / advisory: CTAF MAN
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Check Pilot
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While conducting a Private Pilot Checkride for Rotorcraft Helicopter; we were making right traffic for Runway 11.  After scanning for traffic and only hearing one airplane call crosswind 11; I made my radio call and conducted a simulated engine failure resulting in a 180 autorotation.  At about 70 feet AGL and directly over the numbers for runway 11; a Cessna flew directly underneath us on final approach.  He then executed a touch and go; while I terminated the autorotation.  Vertical distance was about 40 feet.  We never heard any transmissions of his position after crosswind from the previous takeoff.  We had scanned the area; though he was too low on final for us to see him in addition to not hearing him make a call on his position.


Second narrative: It was a close call. Neither the helicopter pilot applicant; nor I saw the Cessna that must have been on final approach when the applicant pilot initiated the 180 autorotation. It was apparent that the Cessna pilot never saw the helicopter either as he simply completed a touch and go.


Synopsis: A student pilot; demonstrating a 180 degree autorotation to a hover to a Designated Pilot Examiner while on a private rotorcraft rating checkride; suffered an NMAC with a landing Cessna single at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flying pilot and I were descending to 6;000 feet when we noticed that the left engine was not responding to the movement of its associated thrust lever. The engine was running steadily at 72% N1. I had him move the thrust lever to its detents; both forward and back; with no change in engine thrust. I knew we were going to have to shut this engine down and proceed single engine. I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance through ACARS and advised the Flight Attendant of our intention before conducting the actions of the QRH. We ran the procedure for thrust lever jammed. It was VMC and we proceeded to land.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain discovers the left engine is not responding to thrust lever movement during descent and is holding a steady 72% N1. The engine is shut down following QRH procedures and a single engine landing ensues.
Date: 201408
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: SELCAL
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: One of my flights notified me that we had two aircraft in the same area with the same SelCal id and that it was causing confusion with ATC.




Synopsis: Two flights in the same vicinity with the same SelCal id were confusing to ATC.