elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am writing this report with the sole purpose to inform and at same time bring awareness to everyone in safety that Management on night shift at ZZZ has been directing us to inspect and sign off the Pitot tube inspections way ahead of time of their departure time as opposed to what the AFMM 20-XX.XX.(X.X) which states the need for an inspection check PRIOR to departure and that it be documented on the AML. Now here at nights our RON (Remain Overnight) aircraft have these items already in the AML Log as entries to be signed off. I; as a Crew Chief; have strongly raised my disagreement to Management in that if any of my crew members were to sign this step too early in the night when the airplane is not scheduled to depart way into hrs later or evening hrs for that matter; could represent a safety of flight if for instance the pitot tubes were to get obstructed (FOD or insects) AFTER having them inspected too early and signed off in the logbook...this could have repercussions by the FAA on the mechanic who signed this inspection way too soon before departure if something was to happen either on taxi or takeoff. Hence; my disagreement with Management. I would like to bring this awareness in this report with the intent to bring Management's awareness into the sensitivity and at the same time importance of this Inspection be done as it states in AFMM 'BEFORE DEPARTURE'...I thank you all for your time and efforts put forth into this matter and hope that this issue be resolved. I strongly suggest that the AFMM be followed to the letter as it states: 'BEFORE DEPARTURE'...also we have seen way too many insects especially at NIGHTS!! Clinging to several areas of the fuselage; engines and gears up to and including PITOT STATIC TUBES/PORTS!




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Crew Chief reported being told to direct his technicians to perform an aircraft inspection procedure incorrectly.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While training on South Radar; my trainee was vectoring Aircraft X for a Visual Approach to ZZZ. Aircraft X was assigned various headings for the approach; and assigned 8;000 feet in accordance with the Minimum Vectoring Altitude that they were currently above. Aircraft X was observed descending to/through 7;000 feet and issued a climb to 8;000 feet. In the future; I will issue a low altitude alert and a climb to the appropriate altitude.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller giving instruction reported an aircraft descended through its assigned altitude and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202009
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were departing from an airport in mountainous terrain with an associated ODP. The visibility was approximately 3 miles due to the smoke from forest fires. The wind was gusting approximately 18 kts on the surface. The crew conducted a thorough brief regarding the terrain; ODP; and route of flight. The crew discussed the benefits of climbing approximately v2+20 with the flaps to obtain a steeper climb angle and allowing close flight path management. After takeoff the crew proceeded to turn to the ODP heading; and then to the ODP radial as briefed. During the first turn the aircraft encountered a significant gust and briefly triggered the stick shaker [for] roughly half a second. The aircraft configuration was flaps 20; and the speed at the beginning of the shaker was approximately v2+25 and never dropped below v2+20. Due to the terrain and conditions I was monitoring flight path closely and not distracted by cleaning up the aircraft during the initial low altitude environment. There was really no stall to recover so the upset procedure wasn't preformed as we had already left the indications and were at a safe steady state by the time we could have done anything. At this point we elected to accelerate and clean up the aircraft and continue climbing with a bit more margin in the event we encountered more gusts. The rapid gust onset seems to be the primary cause of the event. It could have been slightly coupled to the roll into the turn at the same time.During debrief we talked about the importance of being smooth with the controls even though there wasn't aggressive maneuvering taking place.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported stick shaker on climb out due to a wind gust.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On [date]; Aircraft X; Passenger X; became very defensive and rude after I asked him to place his mask over his nose and mouth. His response for having it off was that he was drinking coffee; however; there was no coffee and he never disposed of any during trash pickup. After doing my compliance check; he ask if we had any mask that he could wear and drink at the same time in a condescending tone. I replied no and walked to the boarding door for departure.After door closure; Passenger X began to talk on the phone. After repeatedly asking him to get off; he did not comply. After the Captain made an announcement for all cellular devices to be in airplane mode; he still continued his conversation until he was done talking. His non-compliance and dismissive approached could be a risk in the unlikely event of an emergency in his future of flying.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was not compliant with face mask policy and talking on the phone when not allowed.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 2V6.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was in cruise phase on the flight; from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Around Yuma there was an object in the air which me and my passenger couldn't identify but seemed like a balloon with a human size gray color metal part at the same altitude. We passed very close by; it was scary and since it was a relatively small object I couldn't see it from very far; so I didn't have much time to react. It wasn't moving in horizontal (not 100% sure about horizontal) or vertical space. Also didn't appear on Stratux or GPS. I was on flight following; so I immediately communicated with the ATC and shared details. 2 days after this incident; we were on the way back to ZZZ; exactly same happened around the same area; reported again to ATC the same way. The only difference this time was; it was [a] little smaller. Few days ago; since I'm currently in IFR training I shared my experience with my CFII except giving the location but the destination; he immediately asked if this happened around Yuma and I was surprised with his question. He is not sure what the object is either; but obviously I am not the only one seeing these. So wanted to create this report since I think it's a high potential danger especially if that would be an IFR flight.




Synopsis: Private pilot reported an encounter with a large stationary balloon while in cruise flight near Yuma; AZ.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During landing rollout on Runway 27L at about the 80 KT call ATC issued extensive instructions on runway exit including a runway crossing clearance. These instructions caused us to abandon our runway exit plan to comply with the new ATC instruction. Only after missing our planned exit point did we realize the taxiway we were looking for to exit did not intersect with Runway 27L and was a taxiway the Controller intended us to use to cross Runway 27R. The timing of the ATC instructions along with a runway crossing clearance during a busy phase of flight caused us to misunderstand the clearance meaning.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew missed the assigned runway turnoff and attributed the error to receiving extensive taxi and runway crossing instructions during busy landing rollout phase.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dusk
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified by the safety department that the Dispatcher for our flight filed a report for that flight departing without an alternate. The TAF information that we looked at showed the weather legal to depart without an alternate. Once boarding was complete it came to our attention that the gate agent boarded before the plane was sprayed with disinfectant. We called the Operations Center and they wanted the plane to be deplaned and sprayed. We finally talked with operations and got them back out to reattach the jet bridge and send the sprayers out. After cleaning was complete we re-boarded; closed up and prepared to push back. When we were initially ready to push we would not have been very late. As we waited longer and longer for a push crew the weather got worse at our destination. We ended up landing XX minutes out of our window to file without an alternate.Due to the aircraft cleaning being delayed and our focus being towards the cleaning of the aircraft and figuring out how to get everyone off and cleaners back on we became distracted. We took our attention away from the flight and did not catch that we were to arrive much later than expected and when we would need an alternate. The Dispatcher did not catch this either and we departed without an alternate.The pilot's sole focus should be on the safe operation of the aircraft; there needs to be some sort of divide when it comes to who handles the cleaning and problems in the back of the aircraft. When our attention was away trying to make sure other people were doing their jobs; i.e.;: cleaning in the cabin; we became distracted and didn't catch the mistake made in filing an alternate.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported taking off without a required alternate. A delay due to spraying for COVID-19 was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting an instrument approach into ZZZ late at night (early morning); I inadvertently descended below the minimum altitude for the approach segment by about 250 ft. I was flying with another pilot who was working radios while I was flying. We had completed a procedure turn and advised the controller that we were established inbound. Normally; ZZZ1 TRACON is the facility that we work with when operating at ZZZ; but since it was late; they were closed and we were talking to ZZZ2 TRACON. The controller cleared us for the approach; and as we crossed the IAF I began a descent to 2;800 - the minimum altitude for that segment of the approach. As we were descending; there was some confusion between myself and the pilot I was flying with as to if the controller wanted us to change frequencies and how he wanted us to cancel our IFR clearance. This confusion caused me to break my instrument scan to discuss with the other pilot and as he queried the controller. I think since we weren't in the clouds; I was slightly less focused on keeping my scan going. After a few seconds; my normal scan resumed and I noticed we were approximately 250 ft. below the minimum altitude for that segment of the approach. Upon seeing this I immediately began a climb back to 2800 and leveled off. The rest of the approach to landing continued without further issue. The cause of this problem was confusion regarding ATC instructions which caused me to break my scan and continue a descent past the minimum altitude. As PIC (Pilot in Command); I felt a responsibility to be involved in the communication issue; when I should have delegated it to the other pilot (who is fully qualified).




Synopsis: C172 pilot became distracted on approach and descended below minimum altitude.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, NY
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing a postflight inspection; I was carrying a golf umbrella as there was moderate to heavy rain occurring at the time. The postflight was being performed at night so I had a flashlight in one hand and the umbrella in the other. After coming around the back outboard side of the right engine; I proceeded to inspect the aft right side of the fuselage; moving in a forward direction. As I went to inspect the underside of the right pylon; I looked upward. In doing this; the umbrella was tilted aft over my shoulder so I could see above me. The air intake to the APU; on the right side of the fuselage; provided enough suction to pull the umbrella up against the protective screen. I pulled the umbrella away immediately but the force of the umbrella being pulled into the protective screen resulted in the dislocation of the forward lower section; bottom section and approximately one-half of the rear section of the protective screen from its housing. I contacted maintenance about the event and filled out the aircraft log. Be aware of where you are on your preflight/postflight when utilizing an umbrella!




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reports having his umbrella sucked up against the APU air intake during a night post flight inspection in the rain. The inlet screen is damaged.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our aircraft had 5 open MEL items and the previous crew had refused it due to concerns of weather at their destination airport. I had a conference call with Dispatch and Maintenance Control regarding aircraft maintenance history and learned the weather radar had failed and there had been seven previous write ups in past 30 days. The aircraft was taken out of service to fix the radar. On the day of our flight I arrived at airport and the radar was signed off. On departure; however; the radar failed and the pressurization flow light illuminated. We were then unable to control cabin altitude so we descended to 8;000 FT and diverted to a nearby airport. Contract Maintenance pressurized AC on ground and could not duplicate air leak. Company Maintenance personnel were flown in; along with a part that 'was only other part' that had not been replaced in previous 8 radar write up's and assured us that that 'should fix problem.' I informed Dispatch that; since the remaining MELs were still active and because of thundershowers in departure area; I was refusing the aircraft for revenue flight but would be happy to ferry it to a maintenance base so it could be fixed. The on duty Chief Pilot called and agreed completely with my decision.




Synopsis: An MD-83 Captain refused an aircraft for revenue flight due to multiple recurring MEL items including a chronic radar problem. Thundershowers in the departure area were a critical factor.