elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departed with an aircraft with two MEL items on the fuel system; one of which was a level indicator. While in flight; a third fuel system failure came up on ECAM. This third failure required manual manipulation of fuel sources and resulted in fuel imbalance; requiring multiple configuration changes. With that many failures on a critical system we decided in the sake of safety of flight to divert rather than continue to [our destination airport] where thunderstorms were in the area.




Synopsis: A321 pilot reported while operating with two fuel system MEL items they developed a third problem enroute. Flight crew elected to divert.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: F/O conducted the walk-around and this was a night departure.  I was also on the ramp; returning from operations after picking up my required paperwork.  We met at the base of the jet bridge stairs; and he requested me to look at the left wing.  Approaching the wing; I saw nothing wrong.  After illuminating the flap track canoe; I was able to see a small diameter cable that appeared to be attached under the leading edge of the wing.  The aft end of the cable was tucked in to the aft end of the canoe; which caused an unsafe aircraft condition. Maintenance was notified; and in their actions; they lowered the leading edge slats.  It was then noted; the outboard lengthwise cable was broken in the slat asymmetry system.  Further; the inbound flight crew had no indication; due to the apparent lack of leading edge disagree light illuminating.  The discovery of this thin; broken cable during nighttime conditions was; in my opinion; an unlikely possibility.  This mechanical issue was attended to while the aircraft was still on the ground; and before it became an issue after departure or in in flight.




Synopsis: B737 Captain describes the discovery during preflight inspection of a cable broken in the slat asymmetry system.  The cable was difficult to detect in the darkness.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower cleared us for takeoff and then cleared another aircraft to cross the same runway.  We discontinued takeoff roll at near taxi speed.  Other aircraft had just started to cross the runway at other end after landing on the parallel.  Since the runway is 11000 feet long the aircraft were separated by over 1 mile.ATC cleared one aircraft to takeoff and another aircraft to cross down field at the same time.


Second narrative: After clearing us for takeoff tower cleared an air carrier to cross our runway.  The air carrier apparently didn't hear our takeoff clearance because he crossed the hold short line.  We had just advanced the power for takeoff.  Immediately upon hearing the crossing clearance I told the Captain not [to] takeoff and made a quick radio call to the tower that we were not going to takeoff.  We had just started to move and the captain quickly reduced power and brought the aircraft to a stop.  It was uneventful for us.Tower controller error.


Synopsis: B737 pilots report of being cleared for takeoff then Tower clearing another aircraft to cross downfield.  Pilots abort takeoff.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landings practice was in process with a full pattern. All traffic was starting to have a longer than necessary downwind. On my final a Cessna 172 approached me on base turning final under my altitude. I noticed them and took immediate corrective action by exiting the pattern to the right. Lack of communication was the largest problem in my opinion.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported that while on final a Cessna 172 turned base to final below him.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching cruise and after cross checking [our] airspeed indicators we noticed that the readings were not accurate. We ran the QRH and determined that we had either or both a pitot and static system failure. We [requested priority handling] with Center; and continued flight towards ZZZ as [that] was [the] best option to stay VMC. Stayed VMC going into ZZZ and landed visually on Runway X with no issues.


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


Synopsis: PC12 flight crew reported requesting priority handling with ATC after noticing unreliable airspeed indications.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On taxi out after crossing runway 27R on the way to 27L we got an ECAM fault that said 'RIGHT WING OVERFLOW.'  We did the procedure and the overflow still existed. We verified this by looking out the cockpit window as well as ATC relaying visual confirmation from other aircraft. I shut down the right engine hoping this would stop the leak. I quickly called Mainteneance to ask their advise and they said taxi it back in on one engine if I felt comfortable. Unfortunately even with the right engine shut down the overflow still existed although it had diminished. At this point I knew that I could not taxi an aircraft spewing fuel back to the gate so I started the APU and shut down the left engine along with all the fuel pumps. This finally seemed to bring the overflow to a slow drizzle and it eventually stopped. My First Officer was a great help throughout this ordeal with good insight and advice as we needed to keep a lot of people in the loop: Maintenance; Ground; Operations; Flight Attendants; passengers; ETC. Firetrucks were dispatched and an airport fuel clean-up crew also came. The fuel clean-up was started and it was decided by the Airport Authority that the tug would make a practice pull to see if we could be towed without any fuel sloshing out of the wing. We were tugged a few hundred feet and unfortunately fuel overflowed from the wing. Airstairs and 3 busses were called to remove the passengers from the aircraft while we sat on the holding area next to the departure end of 27L. We all deplaned without an further issues and the passengers were taken to the terminal. I don't know exactly why the right wing was overflowing but I do know that an MEL had just been removed concerning a fuel pump or valve. (I don't remember which) I believe this maintenance that had just been done must have had something to do with the overflow.




Synopsis: On taxi out; A321 crew received 'RIGHT WING OVERFLOW' ECAM message. After completing the QRH procedure and visually confirming the venting fuel; crew shut down both engines to stop the fuel venting and the aircraft was towed to the gate. Cause of fuel venting was not reported. MEL for fuel pump or valve had been cleared before the flight.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When performing my safety checks I noticed that the EMK (Emergency Medical Kit) located in the compartment at 1L was not part of my safety check. I also noticed that FA (Flight Attendant) 4; who also has safety checks in the forward cabin; did not perform a check of the EMK. I checked the Flight Attendant Operating Manual to see which FA is responsible for checking the EMK. No FA is assigned to pre-flight the EMK. I then checked the Manual/Aircraft General/Preflight Safety Checks to confirm that the EMK is a FA Safety check and not a maintenance check. It is listed as a FA check. This omission affects the entire B737-800 fleet.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reports that the Emergency Medical Kit is not part of pre-flight safety check.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P08.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: CTAF P08
Second aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were making a visual approach into P08; an un-towered airport. We sequenced into the traffic pattern with three other aircraft and a King Air circling to land off of a practice instrument approach. The king air made one radio call announcing that he was circling to land and would sequence behind all of the traffic already in the pattern. As we were stabilizing on the base turn of the pattern; we looked up and saw the king air; on a very short and low downwind approximately within 100 feet off our wing. We broke off the approach and began climbing and turning away.

Callback: Reporter stated they had just completed their base turn in left traffic for Runway 5 and were established on base when the near midair collision occurred. They were at approximately 500 feet AGL. One or two other aircraft were behind the reporter's aircraft in the traffic pattern. The King Air was accomplishing a practice GPS approach to Runway 23 and in the process of circling north of the airport for left traffic to Runway 5. The King Air had made their last radio call when the King Air had begun the circling portion of their approach. The King Air flew a 'downwind' portion of their pattern that was inside the normal downwind pattern for the airport. The King Air was on the 'downwind' portion of its approach when it was first seen by the reporter at the reporter's 9 - 10 o'clock position at the same altitude with about 200 to 300 feet separation. The reporter took evasive action and climbed; and the King Air passed directly behind the reporter's aircraft. The King Air exited the local area without further pattern work or communication.



Synopsis: C172 Instructor reported a Near Midair Collision at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took over this flight after sign-on. As the flight was closing out; I took a closer look. I noted that there was HAZMAT planned in [Bin] 2; along with 15 bags. Looking at what was actually scanned; I noted there were only 10 bags scanned in [Bin] 2. The remainder of the bags; and an [express cargo] item were scanned in [Bin] 3. The [express cargo] item isn't actually HAZMAT; but a restricted item. This item carries the SLS code of 'RDS.' This item carries the same loading requirement of HAZMAT. It must be secured by 15 bags; and can't be loaded in the nesting system of A320s and 757s.As I was looking at the ramp scanning; I got a call from the Ramp Lead. He advised me that the [express cargo] item was scanned and in [Bin] 3. He seemed confused that this was actually a restricted item (HAZMAT loading rules even though not HAZMAT). I advised him that this item couldn't go in [Bin] 3 as that's a nesting system. I advised him that the flight would have to come back to the gate and either remove the [express cargo] or move it to [Bin] 2 along with 15 bags. He said the flight was already out. I told him that I'd contact the crew by ACARS and he said he'd call [Station] Operations. I advised my Shift Manager what was going on; sent the crew an ACARS message; and advised [Station] Operations. As I was doing this; my Lead was advising the Flight Dispatcher what was going on. The flight returned to the gate area. The [express cargo] and some bags were moved from [Bin] 3 to have 15 bags and the [express cargo] in [Bin] 2. The Ramp Lead finalized the flight thusly; and I sent the final weights to the pilots.After takeoff; the Flight Dispatcher called. He said the Captain noted that the 'HAZMAT Item' wasn't removed from the aircraft; and that bags were moved around when they returned to the gate. I explained the situation with the RDS item to the Dispatcher; and advised moving the item and the bags solved the problem of having a 'restricted' item in the nesting system. The Dispatcher said he would pass the information on to the pilots.




Synopsis: Aircraft Load Agent reported aircraft returned to gate to correct Restricted Cargo load error (HAZMAT loading requirements applied).
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At approximately 1;700 AGL on final approach; fully configured; tower cleared another aircraft to line up and wait on our landing runway; following traffic ahead of us on the approach. The departing aircraft received his takeoff clearance as we were around 1;500 AGL; but delayed his takeoff roll. Tower instructed that aircraft to get moving due to traffic on short final. At about 800 AGL; that traffic had still not begun to roll. At about 700 AGL; I elected to go around.I have had this happen at this airport too many times lately; and have had voice conversations with the tower; and submitted ASAP reports on prior occurrences. The worst case I saw was that the preceding traffic finally rotated as we were about 200 AGL; and the jet blast over the runway was unacceptable. I have decided that if the departing aircraft is not off the ground by the time we are at 700 AGL; I will go around. I have also been the aircraft waiting to depart when I was cleared ahead of traffic on short final and refused that clearance; so as not to jam the arriving aircraft in a similar way.I have a file and pictures that I would like to forward to the tower supervisor regarding an accident that occurred at this airport in 1981 that started with exactly this scenario; to remind them of eventual possible consequences of clearing and aircraft to depart ahead of another on short final.If the arriving aircraft is inside of LEMON and/or below about 2;000 AGL; the tower should hold departing aircraft instead of trying to rush them out.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain reported going around at SNA after the tower cleared an aircraft for takeoff in front of them; with what the reporter felt was insufficient spacing.
Date: 201502
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Travelair 95
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Inverter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Using a 12-110 volt power inverter in pilot area. It completely scrambled an iPhone and Kindle (electronic flight bag) from static electricity. I heard air carriers forbid power inverters in the flight deck area; but part 91 its unknown.




Synopsis: Beechcraft Travelair pilot reported the use of a voltage converter damaged handheld supplemental electronic equipment.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: HF SSB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: September 2012. During preflight; [crew] discovered erosion tape on the HF antenna peeling off. Contacted Maintenance and entered into logbook. After inspection by Mechanic; and discussion with Captain; it was decided that the best course of action would be to remove peeling tape and defer repair. Mechanic said it would take one hour to get equipment and effect repair. After about 15-minutes; Mechanic returned and stated repair could not be accomplished at current location due to proximity of taxiway and possible risk of jet blast to [truck] lift from passing aircraft. I stated that they should move aircraft either by taxi or tow and accomplish repair. Approximately one hour later Maintenance Supervisor came to cockpit and stated aircraft was within limits and repairs or removal of tape would not be accomplished. I tried to explain that the tape could possibly come off in flight and blow onto the Elevator Pitot System which is located directly behind the peeling tape area. Supervisor stated that if I wanted to refuse the aircraft that was my prerogative. Captain Y also appeared at the aircraft to investigate the cause of the delay. After explaining my position he conferred with the Maintenance Supervisor and returned advising me to enter reason for refusal into logbook. Entered into logbook and left aircraft. New aircraft found and departed three hours and 44 minutes late. I suggest Maintenance concentrate on repairing discrepancies rather than putting so much effort into figuring out how to defer repairs.




Synopsis: Captain describes his efforts to have Maintenance remove erosion tape from the HF antenna on the vertical stabilizer of a B737-800 aircraft; due to tape was peeling off and potentially cover Elevator Pitot System in flight. Maintenance Supervisor disagreed. Captain refused aircraft.