elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While checking the Aircraft Maintenance Log (AML) I noticed an entry 'Main Battery showing 8V on initial AC Acceptance.' The corrective action: 'Charged main battery through external power system; battery charged; system Ops normal CRJ900 AMM 24-00-00.'I have always felt uneasy about charging depleted batteries installed on the aircraft using jet bridge power due to the risk of battery overheat and thermal runaway. I have done some research of my own and found that Advisory Circular (AC) 00-33A covers the subject handling of NiCad batteries. It would appear that maintenance is not following the precautions outlined in the AC to reduce the risk of battery overheating and thermal runaway. The purpose of this report is to bring up a possible deficiency in our maintenance procedures. My observations of current practices when charging depleted batteries on the aircraft is that Maintenance (Mx) simply plugs into ground power without observing the precautions outlined in the AC.I would suggest Mx reviews procedures associated with charging depleted batteries on aircraft to determine if they are adequate.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew was unsure if Maintenance used the proper procedure to charge the battery.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Dangerous goods not properly secured in container according to DGR safety hazard regulations. This caused a danger to unloading staff. DGR safety standard regulations should always be followed regarding secure lashing in container to prevent hazard situations. Contributing factors: Build-up staff not paying enough attention to DGR safety standards.




Synopsis: Airline Cargo Safety Analyst reported Dangerous Goods not properly secured in container.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent phase into LAX; on the GOATZ1 arrival; the FMS VNAV system would not work. Our first indication of this fact was that we never had a TOD when in the cruise phase. We were given a clearance to cross GOATZ at 16;000; but the FMS would not let us enter it; no matter what format we used. We also never had a Vertical Situation Display. We were then given a clearance to descend via the GOATZ1. Part of the distraction to us was the fact that the ATIS said that 25L; the normal runway we would be given from that direction; was closed. During the course of our arrival we were given at least four runway changes between runway 25L and 25R. During the arrival; due to the fact that I was flying the altitude restrictions using FLCH and V/S; we crossed DIRBY lower than 16;000 and BUFIE higher than 8;000.


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


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported FMS VNAV system malfunction on arrival; and using vertical speed to fly the STAR.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our aircraft was pushed back then we were given a right turn out. As I moved the aircraft forward and started the right turn; a tug moved into the path of the left wing. Not knowing the drivers intent and in order to prevent any accident/injury; I had no option but to bring the aircraft to a quick stop. With the sudden stop; two of flight attendants reported that they sustained minor injuries. I asked the flight attendants if we needed to return to the gate but they both said they were OK to continue. I made a call to Ramp to inform them of this incident and asked them to inform the tug driver how his/her actions affected our operation. Upon our arrival the two of the flight attendants told me what injuries they sustained. #1 Flight Attendant hit her ribs against a cart in the Business Galley and #2 Flight Attendant hit her knee against a cart in the Coach Galley. Have all ground equipment and vehicles hold their position and give way to aircraft under power until the aircraft has left the ramp area. Proper training for operators of the equipment which transit any ramp and insuring the operator understands the limitation of aircraft when maneuvering on the ramp.




Synopsis: Two flight attendants were injured when an air carrier Captain made an abrupt stop while taxiing at DFW in order to avoid hitting a tug.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Busy session on final landing the Expressway Visual Approach to Runway 31.  My final started to get backed up and I needed to vector northbound over Manhattan for spacing.  Aircraft X was eastbound over Manhattan at 3;000 feet when I cleared him for the approach.  The approach clearance instructed him to cross DIALS; which was about 3 miles east of his position; at or above 2;500 feet.  In between this aircraft and DIALS; Aircraft Y was level at 1;900 feet at the border between LGA Tower's airspace and my own.  Aircraft X descended to 2;500 feet; directly overhead of Aircraft Y at 1;900 feet.When LGA is landing left traffic to Runway 4 the Tower may only work VFR aircraft at 2;000 feet up to the LGA 240 radial.  When LGA is landing left traffic to Runway 31 the Tower may work VFR aircraft at 2;000 feet up the LGA 230 radial.  Even though it's only a 10 degree difference; in such tight airspace it makes a very big difference.  If Aircraft Y was west of the LGA 240 radial there would not have been a problem.  I recommend the Tower's airspace be restricted to the LGA 240 radial when landing left traffic to Runway 3.




Synopsis: N90 Controller makes a request to change airspace related to IFR operations and VFR Helicopter operations.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near miss 15 NM out and in the traffic pattern with the same solo student pilot.




Synopsis: PA28 flight instructor reported two near misses with the same solo student pilot.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying passengers along a sightseeing flight; already cleared into SMO Class D; just off shoreline over Will Rogers State Beach; 400 feet AGL; saw white quadcopter (DJI Phantom type) and took evasive action. Notified tower immediately.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot experienced a NMAC with a drone at 400 feet AGL west of SMO and took evasive action.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SKBO.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SKBO
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flight departed and operated normally until reaching our first holding fix at MQU. Upon entering the hold the airspeed indicator in my PFD [Primary Flight Display] ceased to function and displayed the dreaded X in its place. At this time the First Officer was the flying pilot. As we continued to hold the First Officer lost his ND and then PFD in quick succession. During the hold at MQU and vectors to various other holding fixes we attempted to recover the lost instruments. By the time we were on the last vector to intercept the LOC for the approach to SKBO we had tried every known possibility to recover the lost instruments without success. We flew the ILS with only the standby airspeed indicator; and auto throttles; autopilot and Captain's PFD; ND. The weather at the times was VFR and we had visual contact with the airport from the first holding fix.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a B767-200 suffered the loss of multiple PFD and NAV Display presentations while in a holding pattern at their destination. They were able to continue to a safe landing in VMC conditions utilizing the standby airspeed indicator and the functional parts of the Captain's display.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Approximately 70 miles SE of MCI at FL370; approximately 60 miles upwind of convective weather; we encountered a period of moderate to severe turbulence. When the event began we encountered approximately 20 knot speed increase that took us 3-4 knots into our high speed warning for 5-6 seconds. At the same time; the aircraft climbed approximately 500 feet. The speed was contained; and the aircraft was returned to FL370 within several seconds.


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


Synopsis: Wide body transport flight crew reported speed and altitude deviations resulting from an encounter with moderate to severe turbulence at FL370.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just before pushback; we got a L Pack Inop [message].  The ground personnel on the headset said there was a loud bang and debris exited the aircraft.  Maintenance brought a piece of the fan blade to the cockpit he found on the ramp.  I discussed with Dispatch and Tech the possibility of flying this aircraft back to ZZZ; single pack under MEL.  As a restricted Captain and this was my maiden voyage on [the] North Atlantic after OE (Operating Experience); I told them I wasn't comfortable taking the aircraft in it's current state.  They both said they agreed with my decision. Realizing my limitations being brand new on the airplane and making a decision as to what would be the safest course of action. I don't know how this could be avoided.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Crew flying 787-800 aircraft refused aircraft after Pack failure.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, 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: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After completing all the necessary checks and receiving our takeoff clearance from Tower; we made an attempt to takeoff of Runway 32R at the intersection. At the 80 KTS crosscheck call we were about halfway down the runway and the aircraft was struggling to accelerate. It took a further significant amount of runway to reach V1 and just prior to that both the First Officer and I had made comments during the takeoff roll that the aircraft did not feel it had the necessary performance to keep going. At 125 KTS and what appeared to be more than 3/4 down the runway I made the decision to abort. My perception was that the aircraft was not making enough thrust to continue into the air safely. Did have a slight hesitation at V1 to abort; and started the abort at about 128-130 KTS. The threat was that even though the 'takeoff' thrust was selected; the thrust lever request was matching the target indicated on the EICAS; the aircraft did not accelerate normally. After the gate return we switched aircraft and completed that flight. After taking off; both myself and the First Officer made a point to discuss that the different aircraft accelerated normally and had a significant performance improvement over the previous. Also worth noting was that the weather conditions were very similar in both circumstances.I am not sure how to prevent this in the future as it appears now to have been a failure of one specific aircraft and not necessarily an issue with all of the aircraft or how we operate them.


Second narrative: Around 80 KTS the Captain and I noticed that the prescribed N1 setting seemed rather low (81.5%). A few knots prior to rotation; the Captain aborted the takeoff and said that the aircraft was not accelerating the way it should.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain rejected the takeoff at about 128 KTS because the aircraft was not accelerating normally and at 81.5% N1; the thrust felt too low.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After landing; on the taxi in; we turned westbound on taxiway; since it was snowing fairly hard; and the wind was blowing; we made sure to identify the yellow centerline and confirmed it by noting the blue taxi lights to our right. Almost abeam to the gate the right engine shut down. We stopped and requested a tug. When the snow let up we determined we were stuck on a snowdrift that had blown onto the taxiway.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they ran into a snowdrift that had blown onto the taxiway which auto shutdown the right engine.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-C1 Eclipse
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 141
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Student Pilot soloing to a nearby airport to practice landings under an endorsement from his instructor to fulfill solo requirements in 141 curriculum. Upon landing; student turned right to get off of runway in order to execute his full-stop taxi-back maneuver. When the aircraft did not turn right to his liking after applying full right rudder and differential brake; he shut down the aircraft to realign it and then continued his taxi. Upon reaching the hold short line at the departure runway of this uncontrolled airport; he discovered again that his plane was not turning to satisfaction and after making his entry call to the runway continued across it to the other side whereupon he manually adjusted its position again to get back onto the runway due to its seeming preference for right turns. He then initiated a take-off at which point the aircraft veered sharply to the left. The student pulled throttle to idle and applied full brake pressure; the lack of grabbing action in the right main brake assembly caused the plane to veer even more sharply left; off the runway to the left and into the grass infield. No objects were struck by the plane and the student shut down and exited in a safe and timely fashion. The aircraft was reviewed by a company CFI and Maintenance Technician and returned to service after a change of brake pads. Speculation is that improper use of the braking system over time caused a [glazing] effect on both the pads and rotor that limited the grabbing ability of the system at the time of the incident. No harm came to persons or property; student was quickly and safely retrieved to the point of the flights origin and the aircraft was returned to service that same day.




Synopsis: DA-20 student pilot reported loss of directional control and a runway excursion resulted when the brakes failed to work properly.