elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We arrived for an aircraft swap early. During my (Captain) preflight flow I always check the standby rudder. As I selected standby rudder the Standby Rudder light illuminated as normal but I had no rudder authority; when I moved to switch back to normal the Standby Rudder on light remained illuminated. Maintenance was called and replaced the overhead module to see if it was an electrical issue. With no change the aircraft was taken out of service. I spoke with two instructors and was told this was not the first occurrence of this problem. I'm concerned to think about the aircraft potentially flying for a period of time before we discovered the problem.Put this check back into our preflight flow.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported that he did not have rudder authority when he used the rudder standby system.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MBB-BK 117 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon landing at home base (ZZZ) oil was noted on the cowling of the number 1 engine.  I elected to stay running and send the crew to tell the mechanic to come look at the leak.  The crew returned and informed me that the mechanic was aware of the leak and that it was in limits.My concern was raised as I wondered how can he determine from inside the hangar that this is the same leak; or at the same rate without a visual inspection.I shut down the aircraft and approached the mechanic with those concerns; he stated he was to busy to look into it any further.  I wrote the leak up and informed him of such; he stated 'I'll just sign that off'20 minutes later; without having me run the aircraft up; the mechanic handed me the logbook with the write up signed off with appropriate references that state that the aircraft was run up and the mechanic performed a visual inspection in accordance with the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM).  As I was the only pilot on duty; and I did not run up the aircraft; it is my opinion that my logbook was falsified in order to maintain an in service rate.  I informed management of this and they said there is nothing they could do.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that after writing a discrepancy for an engine oil leak; the technician signed the log book entry as acceptable for service without inspecting; cleaning or operating the engine to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GTU.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D GTU
ATC / advisory: Tower GTU
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just crossed the threshold for landing on Runway 18 when ATC announced 'Aircraft X on short final; go-around.' I had been cleared for landing as number three; with additional aircraft behind me; and had been directed to follow the Aircraft Y in front of me. In all previous communications; the Tower had used my tail number call sign. I heard ATC's call; but assumed that it was intended for the aircraft behind me since I was already well over the runway and ATC's previous calls had all used my call sign. I landed while the airplane in front of me was still on the runway; about 500-600 feet ahead. I heard ATC's direction; but assumed that it was for the airplane behind me and was concerned that climbing back in the pattern would put me in front of the other airplane that was going around. After landing; ATC gave me a phone number to call them and I did; explaining to them my perspective of the situation. As a student pilot; I had been told not to land when another airplane was on the runway; but failed to recall that during the landing because the round out was in progress and requiring my full attention. The experience of having to call the Tower and be reminded that I cannot land when another airplane is on the runway; irrespective of how far ahead that airplane may be; has burned the lesson into memory; and while I may make other errors; I will not repeat this one.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported landing while another aircraft was still on the runway at GTU airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were two and a half hours late due to a maintenance issue which allowed the next major snow storm to arrive before we were able to leave BWI. So we had to deice.There were two issues concerning the deice procedures. One; the pad is not well lit.  After being instructed which pad to use; I found it difficult to see any markings and determine safe clearance from the other aircraft. I stopped and one of the deicing crew marshalled us in. Under snowy conditions; the marshaller should be in place to guide the plane in before clearance is given to proceed.Two; after deicing was complete; we had to ask a couple of times for the start times of the applications and to verify that both Type 1 and 4 fluids were used. (With the completion radio call; they said the equipment was clear; but both my First Officer and I thought they were in our taxi path; they were well clear when we were ready to move.) When we first tuned into the ICEMAN frequency; the preceding aircraft had the same issues. We did a wing inspection (although not required) and were satisfied that the job was properly done. The deice crews should be trained not only in procedures for deicing the airplane; but also in what information has to be relayed to us before calling the procedure complete. Also; equipment should really be out of the way; before calling all clear.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew experienced problems with deicing.  The pad is not well lit and marshallers were not in place to provide guidance. Additionally; the de-ice crews had to be called a couple of times for the start times of the applications and to verify that both Type 1 and 4 fluids were used. Also; there was confusion as to whether or not the equipment was actually clear.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MWO.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear sky; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G MWO
ATC / advisory: CTAF MWO
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Take Off
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was with an instrument student. We were taking off and were departing to the North. As we began our take off roll I saw there were sky divers in the area. I was not concerned as they do not cross the runway below 1;000 ft. I mentioned to my student that we had to keep an eye on the sky divers. My student had the throttle all the way in and was getting ready to rotate. I noticed a sky diver getting closer to the runway at a low altitude. The sky diver was on the southeast side of the runway. I instructed my student to not rotate. At that point the plane did lift off; so my student pushed the yoke forward to get back on the runway. We had too much momentum so to prevent any incident I took the controls and performed evasive maneuvers. We swerved over the grass to the northwest side of the runway and then climbed out safely. We were very low to the ground when I took evasive action. I would estimate below 50 ft. The sky diver landed within a few feet of the runway. The canopy was red or possibly an orange red.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported swerving off the runway onto grass while taking off to avoid a skydiver.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: W35.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G W35
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I overflew the W35 airport as I was unfamiliar with the airport. The runway looked clear and the winds looked calm. I then proceeded to enter the pattern for Runway 29. On very short final; I observed several cones (the ~2 foot tall rubber variety) down the centerline of the runway. This caused a late go around/balked landing. The cones were not brightly colored and were easy to miss. There were no NOTAMs closing the airport nor were there any yellow 'X's on the runway. I read they do drag races on the runway and I assume this is what the cones were from. Regardless; the airport needs to be NOTAM'd closed and yellow Xs erected if the airport is in fact closed or the Operator/Manager of the airport need to ensure the runway is clear. This airport has multiple instrument approaches and I doubt I would have seen the cones in reduced visibility or any kind of precipitation. I'm not sure what else I could have done in this situation. I overflew the field first; checked NOTAMs; and even looked at other pilots comments online. Hitting these cones would have resulted in a very expensive repair; a stuck airplane; and potentially injured people.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a closed runway was not NOTAM'd or properly marked; resulting in a late go-around.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] instructed by ATC (Boston Center) to continue climb to FL180. Final cruise altitude was FL360. Pilot Flying departed FL170 and initiated climb to FL180. As aircraft approached FL175; crew received RA call to 'level off' due to traffic in immediate area. Crew was notified by ATC of traffic 1;000 feet above at FL180. Pilot Flying immediately leveled off at FL175 as RA traffic passed overhead. Pilot Monitoring reported traffic in sight to ATC and notified once clear of traffic and continued climb to FL180 with no further issues.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer was climbing after departure. ATC gave a climb clearance to a higher altitude. During the climb the flight crew received a TCAS RA and complied with the TCAS instructions to level off.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climb out of ZZZ we were told by Kansas City Center to level out at 14000' for traffic. Center then advised us to climb to 15000'. Once level; we received a TCAS TA for an aircraft which was approaching us 500 feet above us. We reacted per FOM and asked ATC where the traffic was. We did not have visual contact. ATC told us VFR traffic was approaching us from 12 o'clock about 2 miles away. We searched vigorously but could not see the traffic. The position of the sun and the high humidity due to convective activity likely hindered our chances of visually seeing the traffic. The TCAS showed the target drop to 400 feet above us and we received a TCAS RA 'monitor vertical speed'. I disengaged the autopilot and soon received an 'adjust vertical speed' command with a -500 fmp command which I also complied with. Simultaneously; the Pilot Monitoring told ATC we were compiling with an RA. According to the TCAS; the traffic passed 400' overhead. We never were able to visually identify it. ATC seemed surprised and responded by saying the separation was fine; but we do not believe that was the case with a 400' overhead pass.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported an NMAC with a VFR aircraft on climbout.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were leveling at 15;000 feet and in the process of completing the final portion of the standby electrical power checks by turning off the fourth generator. We were expecting the Captain to retain his PFD/ND; L CDU; Left VHF and upper EICAS. Instead we lost power to everything in the aircraft except the clocks and the ISFD (Integrated Standby Flight Display). We immediately restored all four generators. Within approximately 20 seconds the FO's side of the aircraft was restored along with the lower EICAS; R VHF and the R-transponder. The Captain's side remained unpowered. The FO took over flying and talking responsibilities on the Captain's direction. We had initially lost all COM with ZZZZ radar and had turned back toward Airport ZZZZ remaining at our last assigned altitude of FL150. We determined that the RAT had deployed as expected but the flight control system remained in Normal mode vs reverting to Secondary mode which is normally what happens when you turn off all 4 generators. Therefore; we were able to re-engage both the autothrottles and autopilot. The FO also had his Flight Director. We were unable to call up any Electronic checklist or system synoptic pages. We analyzed our situation by using the FM contained in content locker on our iPads. We re-established communications with ZZZZ radar and terminated the remainder of the test profile. While proceeding to the ZZZZ intersection for the approach we sent the [Contract Engineer] that was onboard into the E&E (Electronics and Engineering) compartment to check for any problems. Everything appeared normal to him and he elected to hit the P310 panel with an empty plastic water bottle to see if it would affect any potentially stuck relays. Amazingly that did restore the Captains side of the aircraft. No CBs were cycled. Once we had regained the Captain's systems he took over flying the jet and we made a normal hand flown full stop landing.




Synopsis: B777 FO reported they lost all power to the aircraft; indicating a problem with backup systems; during a test flight when they turned off all four generators.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Other after mission
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operating VFR with own navigation in the west practice area; flying the ZZZ ILS XX. Notified Approach we would be turning off GPS and changing our callsign. Approach acknowledged the change and we updated the flight ID accordingly. Upon completion of the GPS off testing we notified Approach we were complete with the GPS off portion of the flight and updated the flight ID. Approach switched back to the original callsign. We identified the non-compliance during discussion with the safety officer a week later. We should have been operating under the '[letter]' callsign for the duration of the flight. Clarify the guidance / LOA / SOPs regarding GPS off testing.


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


Synopsis: CE-680 pilots reported not following SOP for testing the GPS.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff and retracting the landing gear; the EICAS message 'Gear Doors' remained on after the gear had been retracted. Additionally; we also had the 'DOORS' light illuminated on the forward panel. We ran the associated QRH checklist. Then we called Dispatch and [Maintenance] and advised them of the situation. We decided to return to [departure airport]. While returning we then received the EICAS message 'HYD QTY - L' along with the actual quantity on the lower EICAS screen showing a decreasing trend. We ran the associated QRH checklist. We then called both Dispatch and [Maintenance] to update them on the situation. We continued to [departure airport] with an uneventful overweight landing.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported returning to departure airport after experiencing landing gear retraction issues related to low fluid quantity in the left hydraulic system.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On this flight we had to heavily brake for two different tugs that drove out right in front of us on the vehicle road; and four others cut us off close enough that we had to stop and wait for them to clear the aircraft. One of the heavy brake situations; the tug driver ran a stop sign and did not look before he was directly in front of us. This seems to be happening much more regularly in Atlanta recently; I have had multiple instances in the past several weeks. Tug drivers not driving safely and not giving way to aircraft




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported hazardous tug operations resulted in taking evasive action