elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While conducting operational experience [training] (OE) for a returning First Officer we were about to land in 28R in SFO.  Tower advised caution for wake turbulence for a heavy jet [that] took off prior to our landing on 28L.  During the flare we encountered turbulence and what seemed a loss of energy/airspeed.  I quickly took over and added thrust to regain airspeed and decided a complete go around was the best course of action.  We returned for a visual approach.  There was confusion on final as to which runway we had been cleared to land on.  Approach cleared us for approach to 28L.  Tower thought [it] was 28R and issued landing clearance 28R which we did not hear and replied cleared to land 28L which they did not hear.  A heavy jet was then cleared to line up and wait 28L.  Tower then asked us to confirm our landing runway clearance we responded 28L.  Tower then cleared us to sidestep and land 28R which we did without incident.  I made a follow up call to the tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes prior to our discussion.  I discussed this event with SFO tower supervisor who reviewed the tapes.  He explained NORCAL failed to include 28L for approach in our data block for our second approach.  We were told to expect and planned on an approach to 28L.  We were then cleared for a visual approach to 28L.  Tower did not have this information in the data block.  We apparently were cleared to land 28R.  I did not hear this.  I heard and responded cleared to land 28L.  Tower did not hear my response.  I think the omission of 28L in the data block was a significant factor in this event. The flight status after this event is that we sidestepped to runway 28R and landed without incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports a go-around during landing due wake turbulence from a heavy jet departing the adjacent runway. During the second approach there is miscommunication and confusion about the assigned runway for landing and the Tower issues a side step to 28R at the last minute.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Weather; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Aircraft [cargo] loading tail jack was released from aircraft [fuselage] jack ball; due to faulty tail jack and damaged the tailcone skin during high wind conditions.


Second narrative: Doing a Pre-Departure Walk-Around and found the tail jack [was] off the [fuselage Jack pad] mount and was contacting aircraft about 12 inches in from the mount.  Found a crack in fuselage skin.


Synopsis: A cargo loading tail jack was found released (separated) from a fuselage jack pad mount ball in high wind conditions. Fuselage skin crack damage was found on the B747-400 tailcone.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My FO (First Officer) and I were flying Aircraft X which had Bleed number 2 deferred and on climb out we had Bleed 1 fail. This happened at about FL230. As I saw the message and called out the problem I realized that we were no longer being pressurized. Knowing that I suggested we both don our masks stop our climb and ask ATC for a lower altitude. We donned our masks and divided the duties of myself running the QRH and the FO having the radios and airplane. He asked ATC for a lower altitude and [notified them of the situation] while I ran the QRH for the Bleed one fail. ATC gave us a heading and soon after cleared us for an immediate descent to 10;000 feet. I ran the QRH for Bleed 1 fail and the reset worked. We were already on our way down to 10;000. I knew with the APU we could get pressurization at 15;000 if the bleed failed again but with the terrain in between us and [our destination] we decided that the best course of action was to return to ZZZ. We requested that from ATC and started to go there. We wore our masks down to 10;000 feet as the most conservative option should the bleed fail again. I notified the flight attendants and passengers of our situation and that we would be returning to ZZZ. I also messaged Dispatch through ACARS. I resumed control of the radios and my FO flew us to ZZZ without further incident. The highest I saw the cabin altitude get was 8500 and the passenger oxygen masks did not come down.I would say that maybe with one bleed inoperative that we could limit ourselves to a lower altitude than FL310. I feel that if we had been at 31;000 the cabin altitude might have gotten to a point of the passenger oxygen masks coming down depending on how quickly a descent can be made of course. I have heard of this not being the only time both bleeds have failed here so I would also say putting a more restrictive timeline on how quickly the bleed is fixed could also work.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported aircraft #1 bleed failed on climb while #2 bleed was deferred resulted in a descent and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; while attempting to extend the flaps; for a normal landing; the flap motors failed and the flaps were stuck at the flaps 9 position. We [advised ATC]; performed the appropriate check lists; and proceeded to land uneventfully. Flaps failed in the flaps 9 position.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reorted flap failure at the flap 9 position. QRH procedures were complied with and a flap 9 landing ensued.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Noticed passenger doing cellular recordings of catering truck and personnel. Flight Attendants involved instructed passenger to delete it. Passenger admits he had already downloaded recordings to a public domain refusing to stop recordings. I immediately reported 'Suspicious Behavioral' situation to the Captain and requested permission to get released from the flight due to the fact I didn't feel safe with this passenger onboard. Gate Agents also got involved in the incident. Eventually passenger was removed from flight. The company provided the passenger with hotel and flight accommodations on a later flight. I proceeded to report incident to [Airline Company] Security and TSA. Not only he was recording the catering process but to me he looked very suspicious. My work attendance got affected with a missed trip for leaving the flight to report situation.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a security concern with a passenger filming a catering operation and not deleting the video.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger in XX [seat] was not wearing mask. Every time I walked by to check he was snacking or sipping his water. Passenger in YX pulled me aside to tell me XX wasn't wearing a mask the whole time and was outraged at me for that. He didn't see XX eating or drinking. I got chewed out by YX but there was nothing I could do.[Suggestion:] Limitations on how long you have to wear face mask.


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


Synopsis: Flight Attendants reported a passenger complained that another passenger did not wear a face mask during the flight.
Date: 201810
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other ramp
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: As I was fueling my CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) Tractor; one of the hoses exploded; and with the amount of [pressure]; [it] was flying everywhere erratically. I was hit twice in back and side of thigh as I was getting away. I was lucky it didn't hit my head or face as I truly believe I wouldn't be here. Some coworkers were nearby and able to use Emergency Shutoff as CNG gas was very potent. I was injured and injury report has been filed.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp employee reported a Compressed Natural Gas hose ruptured causing injury.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Cessna 400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A C560 was vectored northbound over PHX at [5000 ft] enroute to SDL. The COL4 was southbound at [4500 ft] on the East Transition over PHX. These are altitudes on routes per our SOP. Both aircraft were level. Traffic was called for both aircraft and they were told the other was level. The C560 passed over the COL4 and responded to an RA. He climbed 200 FT; saw the other aircraft; and then descended back to his assigned altitude. Separation and safety was maintained on routes and altitudes per the P50 SOP. The only way to avoid this completely would have been to climb the C560 to [6000 ft]; which would have been a 1;000 FT climb within 10-15 miles from his destination and it would require coordination. If another aircraft was at that altitude it wouldn't have been an option. There wasn't anything else I could have done to help.




Synopsis: P50 Controller described a TCAS RA event resulting from a minimally separated IFR overflight and a VFR transition aircraft; the reporter noting all SOP procedures were followed.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We [my Air Carrier] received an A320 left-hand (l/h) Inboard (I/B) Flap from a Contract Maintenance Repair Station with an FAA 8130-3 Tracking Tag. The Status/Work [section on the Tag] says: Repaired. The FAA 8130-3 Tag indicates all other discrepancies left as is and Customer will complete all other items listed in Tear Down [Disassembly] Report. This flap was delivered with several parts not installed and just put inside a box loosely. This flap is not a complete unit. Several bearings [that were] not written-up are bad and have paint over-spray; both wiring harnesses on unit are chafed and worn thru; only one was written-up in Tear Down Report. There are several discrepancies with this flap not written-up and [this flap] should not have an FAA 8130-3 Tag attached to it. Nowhere on the FAA 8130-3 Tag does it indicate [the flap] unit is not assembled per the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC); or [indicate] what parts are not installed; [also] some parts missing and not documented.




Synopsis: An A320 Left Inboard (I/B) Flap unit received from a Contract Repair Station with incomplete repairs; parts not installed; numerous discrepancies not written-up; worn bearings; chafed wiring harnesses and missing parts not documented had an FAA 8130-3 Tag that stated: Repaired.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While following the FMS climb on the departure ATC asked us our altitude. We were a mile or to past WENTZ climbing out of 1;900 for 2;000 FT. ATC instructed us that we must cross WENTZ at 1;500. We know this and thought we did.




Synopsis: HS125 Captain is admonished by ATC for crossing WENTZ above 1;500 FT on the RUUDY 4 from TEB. The reporter believed he had complied with the restriction.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp DFW
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During preflight contact with the ground crew; each time the ground crewman keyed the microphone to communicate with the flight deck a local radio station could be heard.  The radio station was loud enough to make it difficult to hear the ground person.  There is no problem when the flight deck transmits. This is an ongoing issue at DFW gates. Problem is on going but has not caused delays yet. This is an on going issue. Ground Management has not addressed the issue because we have not delayed flights. It is getting bad enough we need to address it soon. It appears; to me; to be related to the wireless headset use.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported on going difficulty communicating with ramp personnel over inter-phone system; in DFW airport; due to a local radio station bleed-through.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC; Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I spent nearly 2 hours on position. I went on a lunch break. I was paged back 19 minutes in. I plugged into position 20 minutes after my last break started. The Controller I was getting out was nearly past 2 hours on position. It is a pattern; an ordinary practice to spend more than 2 hours on position. Sector was above capacity (red) which is also a normal and daily occurrence and nothing is done to mitigate these situations. Other sectors in the room were also red. Going over 2 hours on position has also become a regular occurrence.I had pointed out Air Carrier X to one sector and handed both of them off to another sector. A typo had them handing off to the wrong sector instead. My mistake wasn't caught until the aircraft were inside their airspace. Controllers in my area (and I imagine other areas as well) are routinely forced to work too much traffic without adequate help in the form of splitting sectors; Assist sides; Trackers; or TMU support. While this behavior has become ordinary everyday conditions it is completely unsustainable and completely unacceptable from a safety standpoint.Sectors need adequate support for the volume and complexity of traffic they are dealing with. Controllers need appropriate breaks throughout their shift to allow recuperation before working more heavy traffic. Working a busy workload takes a huge mental toll on controllers which is not being addressed.




Synopsis: ZLC Center Controller reported handing aircraft off to the wrong sector during high volume traffic.  Reporter stated staffing issues and fatigue contributed to the incident.
Date: 201409
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oil Indicating System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have previously posed the following question to the program with no official written answer received: On the Cessna Citation XL/XLS fleet; what is the minimum acceptable oil quantity level in the engine's outboard sight gauges?Our company's long-time tribal knowledge/wisdom -- that was taught during my IOE in 2008 by a number of instructors -- is to service the oil quantity level to one of two different points -- depending on the conflicting tribal knowledge -- below the by Pratt and Whitney (P&WC) marked minimum oil quantity line. No official written guidance was ever given. Therefore I ask: What is the official FAA accepted/approved minimum oil quantity level accepted for operations of the Cessna XL/XLS P&WC engines? As a side note: During a recent conversation with a our Company Maintenance Vendor Inspector; the inspector claimed our Company has instructed it's vendors to service the Cessna XL/XLS P&WC engines to one of the two points below the by P&WC marked minimum oil quantity line. Though; every other customer's aircraft of said vendor is being serviced to the P&WC marked minimum oil quantity line.Furthermore; it was claimed that our Company has instructed Maintenance Vendors to only consider an active dripping of oil to the ground and it's pooling on the ground as a possible indication of an active engine oil leak. Therefore; clear indications of engine oil -- streaking or otherwise -- coming out of cowling openings not designed as drain/overflow holes are not to be considered as possible engine oil leaks.Only in this past tour of seven days I have encountered two aircraft that had oil on the lower cowling present without active dripping and/or pooling on the ground. Both aircraft were reported to maintenance; and; an active oil leak was found upon further Maintenance Inspections that needed new parts on both aircraft.




Synopsis: A Cessna XL/XLS Captain reported his company has standardized on engine oil quantity levels lower than the Pratt and Whitney oil quantity level indication and defined a possible active engine oil leak as as the active dripping of oil to the ground; then pooling.