elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X had previously conducted parachute jump operations. Aircraft Y was a VFR overflight southbound passing east of the airport. Aircraft Y had been handed off to Approach and a communication change completed. I observed a beacon code east of the airport climbing toward Aircraft Y. I suspected the beacon code was Aircraft X. I quickly confirmed beacon code assignment with the EDST (En route Decision Support Tool). Even though Aircraft X hadn't called on frequency; I issued a traffic alert to Aircraft X to turn left immediately just hoping the aircraft was monitoring my frequency. Aircraft X was on frequency and turned left immediately. I gave additional information on the traffic type and location. Aircraft X saw traffic and barely avoided it. Radar targets nearly merged at the same altitude. Aircraft X then stated that traffic information just appeared on 'the box.' Normal operations then resumed. [I suggest the jump operator] call via land line 10 minutes prior to initiating jump operations to allow for tactical adjustment of non-participating aircraft. [ATC could] sterilize the airspace in a 10 mile radius around the airport from initial call for jump operations until last jump completed. ATC should conduct quarterly telephone conferences and yearly face-to-face meetings with jump operators to ensure that existing procedures are being adhered to and to make any necessary adjustments.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported an NMAC between parachute jump aircraft and a VFR aircraft.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I have flown the newer model aircraft twice and have lost the ATIS sheet or almost lost it in the crevices forward of the throttle quadrant both times. It is the perfect width to lose single strips of paper. I would bet that the stack of paper is growing underneath the engine display control panel on the newer model aircraft in our fleet which is a safety concern.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that strips of paper can slip under the throttle quadrant; posing a safety concern.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; 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
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to miscommunication with ATC we were high on approach to the runway. No problem really as weather was at least 3;000 overcast and visibility 10 plus miles. On contact with Tower at three miles out and 1;500 MSL we asked for a 360 degree turn to reacquire the profile. Still not a problem as they approved a right turn. As I was in the turn Tower then commanded a LEFT turn; as I rolled out spotted traffic below at 11 o'clock and low. At that time a TCAS RA commanded a climb as traffic was about 2 miles and 200 FT below us. Responded to RA and initiated a climb. Passed traffic with about 400 FT separation. Reacquired final and landed normally on the runway.




Synopsis: A B737 flight crew; high on the approach to the runway at their destination; requested a 360 degree turn to lose altitude and experienced a TCAS RA with another aircraft while doing so.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Oil Seals
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Same Aircraft flew multiple legs with known existing oil leak in engine Number 1. Same pilots from the start flew us for the first couple legs; and I took same aircraft for the last leg same night. Oil leak was supposed to be fixed in the departure airport; but after 5hr flight engine lost a significant amount of oil compared to Number 2 engine. Pilots were confident to fly the second leg even after oil leak. Next pilot's leg took the plane based on maintenance clearance. When finally at the destination of the third leg I met the Capt for the next leg and told her the history. She refused the plane immediately. We lost a significant amount of oil again in second and third legs.Where is our safety; maintenance? This is not safe.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns over a recurring engine oil leak that a Captain refused the aircraft over.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I observed the C Flight Attendant in the jetway in close proximity to other Company Employees without her mask on. I informed her that Company policy required use of a mask. Instead of putting on her mask; she initiated a phone call on her mobile phone and proceeded to walk onto the aircraft and down the length of the cabin aisle to the rear galley.  It should be noted that while she walked down the aisle talking on her phone and with her mask off; there were approximately 12 through passengers on board the aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a Flight Attendant was not wearing a face mask and walking down the aisle of the aircraft with through passengers on board during a stop.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The left upper deck safety rail broke in two spots when I leaned against it. Upon further inspection I found one more broken weld; the reason they broke was due to cold welds. I found five more cold welds on both the right and left railings. The two welds that broke appeared to have been recently done; but the rest seemed much older. This suggests that this has been going on for awhile and there may be many other unsafe welds on other pieces of equipment. Safety rails on lift trucks; JLG's; de-icing trucks; etc...I informed Hangar Supervisors and I tagged the vehicle and brought it to the Ground Equipment Shop. I also showed the Midnight Ground Equipment Lead the welds. I suggested that whoever is doing these welds should stop immediately until he learns how to weld and gets certified.I would suggest that only certified welders repair our equipment. I also think they should check the ground equipment safety features (hand rail lift trucks etc…) for more bad welds.

Callback: Reporter stated he was standing on the upper platform of an AirStair's passenger loading truck that is used to enter and exit B757-200 aircraft when suddenly the welded steel tube railing broke. He is over six feet; six inches tall and if he had fell over; the drop to the concrete was long. He found nine spots of broken and inadequate welds on different sections of the remaining railings. The same truck had recently been used to off-load an entire football team.Reporter stated many of the welds looked like someone had tried to TIG Weld or just spot weld instead of doing a complete weld around each rail tube. Some of the other vehicles do have aluminum rails instead of steel; they also were cracked. He received little support for getting the rest of their ground equipment inspected for similar support rails that may be broken or have unsafe welds; including the belt type baggage loaders and cargo pod loaders.



Synopsis: A Mechanic reports an upper deck safety rail broke in two spots when he leaned against the steel supports on an Air-Stairs passenger loading truck used for entering and exiting a B757-200 aircraft. Numerous other sections of the railings were broken or had 'cold' welds that were not safe.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JEF.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D JEF
ATC / advisory: Tower JEF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I was] flying ILS approach to Runway 30 at JEF vectored to final ahead of a faster aircraft. [I] attempted to fly approach at faster than standard airspeed; causing everything to occur quicker than normal. Was receiving conflicting readings from the glideslope on two different CDI's; did not see this until late in the approach due to intercept from above published altitudes. GPS and altitude verified the correct CDI data; distraction was associated with the data conflict; arrived at target altitude and broke out of clouds just beyond threshold; decided to maneuver to complete landing when at minimums upon the breakout from clouds. Result was non-standard landing maneuvers; instead of the cleared straight in approach. Approach to low IFR airport was at end of a 2:20 MINUTE IFR flight in IMC and weather avoidance. Correct decision would have been to execute missed approach and trouble shoot any problems at altitude; then re-fly approach.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports conflicting glideslope information during ILS 30 approach at JEF and breaks out at 300 FT over the threshold. Non-standard landing maneuvers were used to complete landing when at minimums; that did not comply with straight in landing clearance.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class D BFI
ATC / advisory: Tower BFI
Reporter organization: Personal
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew my drone as a hobbyist in an area near Seattle which I subsequently learned requires notification and approval from the Director and ATC at Boeing Field. I called there and apologized for my oversight and was informed I need to fill out an online application with a 60-90 day approval. I apologize for my lack of awareness on this and spoke to a friend who is a pilot; and he suggested I submit this form for notification. I will not be flying my drone further around my house until I've fully researched and understood all the regulations around flying it. I have downloaded the B4UFLY app to ensure I'm aware of flight restrictions as well. If there is anything further I need to do regarding yesterday's drone operation; please let me know.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported operating his UAV in an area without the proper authorization from the local ATC facility.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were filed for and received clearance to fly the SHNON 2 arrival into IAD; but were not given the fuel for the arrival that we were filed for. The arrival clearly shows that we are to cross DRUZZ at 11;000 FT and the release has us flying all the way to just before DRUZZ at FL290. Also the burn on the release from ELISN to IAD was 17 LBS of fuel burn. The SHNON 2 arrival does not go from ELSIN to IAD. There is either a turn north or south depending on which runway is active. The actual burn from ELSIN to the airport was 300 LBS not 17 LBS. The total burn on the release was 3;449 LBS and the actual burn was 4;057 LBS which meant that; if we took off with minimum fuel; we would have landed with 1;600 LBS of fuel.




Synopsis: ERJ170 Captain reportd the flight planning software used by his company does not consider the entire arrival route and normal delays at large busy airports.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight plan was from LAS to ZZZ at 41000 ft.  Define flight plan was cowboy eight INW ZUN ONM CNX Q20 HONDS J15 CME SJT LLO.   Very close to the vicinity of the ONM waypoint the aircraft began to turn what we thought was the CNX waypoint.  In fact the aircraft turned to a heading of 180-185 and penetrated military Airspace of White Sands missile Range.  We were talking on frequency 132.65. The controller gave us headings to avoid White Sands Airspace. He then change those two frequency 132.07. That controller told us there was a possibility of a pilot deviation and we needed to call [ATC] upon [landing] to discuss the deviation.  In this area there was known GPS testing going on. This contributed to the deviation due to our degraded navigational capabilities of our GPS.  We told the controller on 132.07 that we were navigating on ground based navigation systems. He then gave us a heading when able directed to this San Angelo VOR.  GPS navigation was perfect after we departed the area that was testing GPS navigation systems.  We completed the flight and landed at [destination] airport with no further incident.  After landing I contacted [ATC] to discuss the incident. I explained the situation to him he looked at the radar track and said we had a deep clip [of] the edge of the White Sands Airspace but not by much. He then stated that he does not need any more information about it.Suggestions: When the Aircraft begins to make erratic turns in the air we should have immediately gone into a heading mode.  I didn't realize the GPS testing would cause such an issue with actual aircraft navigation. Aircraft should not be allowed to fly in this Airspace well testing is occurring.




Synopsis: CE-560XLS Captain reported GPS accuracy degradation during flight at FL410.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En route my next destination flight time about 2.5 hours; cruising 2;800 MSL; 92% power; EGT and CHT's normal; no traffic; clear conditions. Without warning engine sputtered and stopped; restart attempts unsuccessful. [I made a] precautionary landing in hay field; no personal injuries; no property damage; except aircraft's landing gear damaged. On the ground inspection revealed empty fuel tank and dry gas filter. Airplane had been topped off before departure with sufficient fuel for 4 hours plus 45' reserve. Suspected problem was an en route fuel leak. Before departure; minor repairs to lexan panel done; and also the prop pitch was reduced by 1 degree. Test flew for 0.2 hours and engine performed well. Aircraft was then parked on the ramp in front of the FBO; preflighted; suitcase and camera bag loaded and secured; and 1 quart oil added. There were no fuel leaks either on the plane or on the ramp; and another pilot sitting near the plane; observing me; would have noticed any dripping fuel. TT on HKS 700e engine (and airframe) 274 hours; a thorough annual was completed on May 2012; pilot BFR on April 2012. Jan. 2012; carburetors rebuilt and synchronized; May 2012; cylinder heads cleaned and new gaskets. In numerous previous tests; fuel consumption typically was 3.0 GPH (or less) at 90% power; and ranged between 3.1 and 3.3 GPH at 95% power; and 3.5 GPH at 97%; including taxi; takeoff; and climbout.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the final maintenance inspection report is not out yet but he suspects that a loose connection at the fuel filter allowed fuel to leak while in flight.



Synopsis: A Challenger LSA HKS 700e engine quit in flight forcing an off field landing which resulted in minor landing gear damage. The aircraft was airborne 2.5 hours with takeoff fuel for 4.5 hours; so a fuel filter fitting leak is suspected.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain was flying. HYD G PUMP LO PR; complied with ECAM and reviewed AOM. Approximately 15 minutes later we had HYD G RSVR LO LVL ECAM message. We complied with ECAM and reviewed AOM. Also; we called up a jumpseater to help out. We declared an emergency with Approach Control; asked for a wide pattern to be able to crank the gear down manually. The approach and landing occurred without incident. We stopped the aircraft just off the runway and had Maintenance tow us to the ramp.




Synopsis: At cruise an A300 ECAM alerted HYD G PUMP LO PR followed by HYD G RSVR LO LVL so during approach the gear was lowered manually and towed to the gate after landing.