elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the second approach in pattern; upon touch down; this tail wheel aircraft began to ground loop; and during recovery and maintaining directional control on runway; right wing tip skin and small corner of right lower aileron skin was scraped on the runway surface. No structural safety issues were apparent. Although airspeed and approach was correct and stable; I believe the cause was due to beginning the flare too soon; about 6 FT higher than normal; resulting in a slightly greater descent; and very low airspeed and low rudder effectiveness; than anticipated by the pilot. Preventative action should have been to make a go-around the pattern. Corrective action will be to continue to practice good landings in the aircraft; both solo and with dual instruction; and increase hours flown in this aircraft; as the pilot last flew this aircraft over 4 months ago and has relatively low time with this somewhat hard to land aircraft.




Synopsis: A N3N pilot ground looped the aircraft and scraped a small section of the right wing tip and aileron on the runway after flaring too high and loosing control of the aircraft at touchdown.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This incident took place in the fwd area of the plane near L1. After taking off from ZZZ; I noticed an odor assuming it's the exhaust. After 10;000 feet; I called up the crew to check out the area to see if they could smell anything. Both smelled a very faint smell that instantly went away; which again was assumed to have been the exhaust. During descent; I smelled the odor again which instantly reminded me of paint. The smell continued to become stronger while taxiing to the gate; causing me to receive a headache. When arriving to the gate; I informed the pilots of the incident and the issue was immediately reported before the next crew worked the flight. 5 hours after the incident I'm continuing to have a headache. No guest complained about any smells.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported odor similar to paint during initial climb and returning stronger during descent. Additionally; Flight Attendant reported experiencing health issues.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Aircraft component: AHRS/ND
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Prior to departure we had discussed the possibility of magnetic compass issues while departing Runway 13 at LGA. We decided to attempt a full length departure and if the problem presented itself we would then ask for a departure from Taxiway AA as recommended on our trip sheet. We were cleared to line up and wait while traffic landed on Runway 22; during this time period I received a red MAG message on both the left PFD and the MFD. The right PFD appeared normal. We advised the Tower that we would need to taxi clear to correct the issue and we were instructed to exit the runway and contact Ground. We did so and the MAG message remained until the left radio master was turned off and back on. We asked Ground if we could depart from Taxiway AA and were told that local policy was not to allow that because of the delay required for intersection departures due to wake turbulence. We decided to try a full length departure one more time. We then taxied back to Runway 13; this time; while taxiing onto the runway; the right PFD displayed the MAG warning followed shortly thereafter by the left PFD and MFD. We advised the Tower we couldn't depart and he said we could taxi further down the runway; off of the bridge portion of the runway; through the 22 intersection. Once clear of the bridge; both displays returned to normal operation. We then departed normally. This is the worst I have ever seen the interference manifest itself at LGA.




Synopsis: A BE-400XP left MAG alerted while holding short of LGA Runway 13 so the crew taxied clear and recycled the left radio master which cleared the alert. When they taxied back to the runway both left and right MAG's alert so they were able to taxi down the runway to clear both before takeoff.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X inbound to Boise from the northwest down to 8;000 on the STAR. Aircraft X turned to downwind for vectors to an RNAV Y Runway 28L approach. I descended him to 7;100 (the lowest MVA to the northeast of Boise). Had training on the other radar position. Casual jokes and talking going on between the controllers. I didn't like the way some of my brightness settings for my maps on my radar display looked so I went into the [scope configuration] and started to adjust some settings for weather and maps. Totally forgot about Aircraft X on the downwind vector and he entered another MVA of 8;000 to the east of Boise at 7;100. No low altitude alert tone since he was in level flight. I issued a low altitude alert; climbed him to 8;000 and turned him to NESLE (FAF) for the RNAV Approach and cleared him for the approach.I was thinking 'how could I've done that?' There were only two airplanes in my airspace at the time! I can't blame it on any one thing. Sure; I had a quick turn from the prior shift; I worked my whole shift and was winding down with 25 minutes to go; there was joking and humorous banter between the control positions when it happened; I decided at that exact time to start tinkering with my radar map settings. This was my fault; I need to pay attention to the aircraft that I have; not be sidetracked by joking around with other controllers or screwing around with my radar settings when I have traffic. This could've all been avoided if I was just watching my airplanes!There is not and 'black and white' fix for this. Just need to pay attention and not get sidetracked by other things. Keeping airplanes safe is our main job.




Synopsis: BOI TRACON Controller was distracted by peer jokes; discussions and fixing the setting on the RADAR scope and forgot about an aircraft that went below a Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201910
Location: ANP.Airport, MD
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: CTAF ANP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Vectored to final RNAV-A by Potomac Approach into ANP. Reported field in sight at FAF. Winds reported calm/variable in local area with no ATIS/AWOS at field. At FAF I requested switch and cancel IFR. Was told to remain on squawk code and switch to CTAF. I switched to CTAF frequency and reported 5 mile final for Runway 30. Reported short final for Runway 30. Near touchdown; I witnessed another aircraft landed opposite direction. I immediately executed a go around without incident. Landed and discussed the incident with the other pilot; who stated the winds favored his landing but he did not announce on CTAF frequency.




Synopsis: Malibu pilot reported another aircraft's failure to communicate position on CTAF resulted in a NMAC followed by a go-around.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Jet Ranger All Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Flight Ops Manager
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Postflight Maintenance Records Check
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Required maintenance/inspection interval was inadvertently overflown. Upon investigation of the cause of the overflight the following root causes were identified. Bell 505 maintenance was developed in accordance with the MSG-3 methodology (Maintenance Steering Group-3). Different than other helicopters/airplanes that we have operated this method does not permit any tolerance for hourly inspection intervals and requires calendar based maintenance actions be conducted to the day rather than the calendar month. For example; a 1 year inspection conducted on May 3; 2019 is required on May 3; 2020 - not May 30 like many other aircraft. A review of the Bell 505 Maintenance Manual found that this information is present in the manual but is in the definitions section not in Chapter 5 where other manufacturer's include the data. The previous operator of the aircraft was not properly utilizing the block provided on each page of the aircraft log to record next maintenance due date and time information. This block is used on other aircraft to convey this information to the flight crew. It is unknown why flight crews and maintenance personnel did not utilize this block in the same manner that is done for the other helicopters. Maintenance planned to operate the aircraft up to 110 hours flight time since the last 100 hour inspection (10% overage as is allowed for other helicopters) or through 7/31/2020 (12 calendar months since last 1 year inspection) whichever came first. [Before the end of July] we made aware by the Bell Tech representative of the date and hour tolerances (none) for the 505 and operations were stopped until maintenance was completed.




Synopsis: During an aircraft records check by Quality Assurance Inspectors; it was found that an aircraft maintained under MSG-3 methodology was instead maintained under MSG-2; causing overflights of many required checks.
Date: 201811
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 Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I got this email asking me to assign an AMT (Aircraft Maintenance Technician) or stock clerk to put this sticker on a 8130 part in our stock room. The Engineering Order instructs you to test the unit. Beyond what can be done at a line station or by a [Maintenance Personnel]. I replied that I would not assign this task but that I would help to get the unit shipped to a shop. The first reply I got was a picture of a unit that OTHER stations had completed. I then got a second email about 6 hours later asking that the unit be [repaired] out of ZZZ.The problem to me is that someone in the company thinks its ok to alter parts without the correct testing or training. Yes; this time it might have just been a sticker or some minor thing; but once this trend starts how does the average AMT not fall into this trap.I can hear it being said 'You did it last time; come on help the company out.' I questioned the task but others have not; maybe I am wrong but those that don't ask will not know until it's too late.  Seems that when I asked the question the issue quickly went away; at least for ZZZ.Everyone involved in Aircraft maintenance should follow the rules and stop trying to evade and skirt them. This is a thought process that should change; but saves money so I doubt it will. Its really about the company culture of trying to get by; on the cheap; instead of doing it the correct way.Make the people who send this type of work out be held to the same standard that you hold the AMT to. Have the [report] team interview and find out why they would think its ok to change 8130 parts without all the required tests. And meter out the same thing that an AMT would have to deal with. Re-training or whatever is deemed equal.




Synopsis: Technician reported being asked to perform improper maintenance.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing MV2 check; and chip detector task cards I pulled chip detectors on both Number 1 and Number 2 engine. Found no FOD; installed new o ring and reinstalled all 6 chip detectors on Number 1 and Number 2 engines. Verified that the chip detectors pins were properly engaged and alignment marks were in alignment. I then went and got Mechanic to verify that all six chip detectors were correctly installed and alignment marks were aligned.


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


Synopsis: Two maintenance technicians reported that a B737 Number 1 engine failed due to low oil pressure/quantity.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was descended to 020 and turned to a heading of 190 to be cleared for the visual approach. A few minutes later 2 aircraft departed adjacent airports and needed to be identified and turned on their way. 1 aircraft misheard the instruction to climb and ident so I had to take a longer time to work with him and separate him from aircraft overhead. By the time I went back to Aircraft X he was within a mile of a 2;500ft MVA. I turned him towards the airport and away from the obstruction but he could not report the airport in sight due to a newly formed cloud deck. Aircraft X went into the MVA by about a half mile and was out and turned completely northbound. He landed without further incident 5 minutes later utilizing the GPS approach I should have kept the aircraft at a higher altitude until he saw the airport.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported being busy and not catching an aircraft go into a low MVA.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On climb out from takeoff on the TERPZ 6 RNAV Departure; Tower issued an immediate right turn away from traffic that was approaching to our front. Simultaneously we received a RA to climb. I executed a turn and climb; complying with the RA as the Captain had visual with the small aircraft. The Captain continued to monitor the other aircraft while keeping me informed as to its proximity. As the traffic continued to get closer I aggressively banked the aircraft in the attempt to avoid a midair collision. Between the aggressive bank and climb; we avoided impact. After the threat ended we proceeded to clean the aircraft up and climb out away from BWI Tower admitted that a breakdown had occurred between the Tower Controller and Departure.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a NMAC after takeoff at BWI.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RJJJ.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: 100 miles north of ADNAP we saw storms on the radar. We asked RJJJ; using CPDLC; for 20 miles deviation to left of course; told to 'standby.' We couldn't safely wait any longer we deviated using heading select (20 miles left of course). About 1 minute into deviation we were cleared by RJJJ to deviate as requested. After passing the initial row of cells it was no longer prudent to be left of track. We turned back to the right to avoid the storms; but needed to now be 5 miles RIGHT of track to be safe. We asked RJJJ for 5 miles right offset. They said 'standby.' We couldn't wait! We turned 5 right offset so we wouldn't hit the storms just as RJJJ said unable 5 right due to traffic. We were 5 miles right of course for about 5 minutes; then got back on the airway as all the storms were now behind us. The problems were difficulty seeing the storms on radar until we were close. Also the time delay in getting permission from RJJJ to deviate and there was no 'reject' button on RJJJ's message to not deviate to the right. We could only accept their message or standby. Neither was an option!




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports requesting deviation for thunderstorms via CPDLC from RJJJ and begins the deviation just prior to receiving clearance to do so. After initially deviating left it becomes necessary to deviate right and another request is made. Again the deviation is commenced prior to receiving clearance and this time the request is denied.