elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After receipt of the Planned DG Summary I verbalized we would need the Final DG Summary before pushback. When it came time to push I forgot about it and subsequently pushed without the Final DG Summary. After push I remembered the DG but was now on an active taxiway at a busy airport so I decided to taxi while waiting for the DG and weights. That probably compounded our problems because it turns out the reason for the delay of the DG Final was there was a loading issue.During taxi when the FO (First Officer) called Operations to inquire about the DG and final weights we were told they needed to rearrange some luggage in the pit that was adjacent to the DG. We were directed to a hardstand where this was accomplished. We then received the Final DG and weights and continued the taxi.


Second narrative: Both Captain and I discussed and agreed on a requirement for final Dangerous goods paperwork at international station prior to pushback. However; just few minutes later; after all doors were closed; we called and received pushback clearance without the final Dangerous Goods paperwork.During taxi we called Operations to get the final Dangerous Goods paperwork and little later we were requested to stop at the hardstand to allow Ground Crew rearranging cargo and bags.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported gate departure without required Hazmat documents. Flight discontinued taxi temporally to reconfigure Hazmat cargo and obtain the missing Final Hazmat documents and subsequently departed safely.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ISP.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ISP
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: This report falls under the 'General or Specific Flight Safety Concerns' category.  Taxiway E prior to crossing Runways 28 and 33L from the ramp area in ISP has been reconfigured and renamed.  The area of concern is now Taxiway B4.  The commercial producer of regular charts and interim changes fail to reflect the changes and thus creates a discrepancy.  Requesting an update for crews to be aware of the changes.

Callback: It was confirmed that the charting changes will be included in the next chart cycle.



Synopsis: An air carrier Captain noted that ISP Taxiway B had been extended the entire length and parallel to Runway 15R/33L and B segment between Taxiway E to the Ramp is renamed Taxiway B4.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Crosswind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given permission to land runway 26L and had touched down. A few moments after touch down everything seemed normal when the aircraft started going to the right. I applied opposite brake and rudder. The aircraft continued around to the right; the aircraft monetarily tipped left striking the left wing tip; then settling back down with all systems operating normal. I cleared the runway and taxied back to our hangar.After thinking about the incident for a week this is my thought that would help prevent the occurrence. I had 40 degree flap setting and slow airspeed at 3 point touchdown. The wind was 350 at 6 kts. I did not have the tail wheel lock on; so at a low speed; with ineffective flight controls; and reflexes did not respond quickly enough on the left brake; a right cross wind gust was the cause.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C185 reported a loss of control during landing rollout due to a crosswind.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC warned us of VFR traffic at 17;000 FT. We picked him up on TCAS. We were on collision course with him and he passed us with only 300 FT vertical separation. We got a TCAS RA and were forced to take action to avoid a possible collision. We never saw him visually but TCAS indicated that he passed directly overhead with 200-300 FT separation. With a VFR pilot flying at 17;000 FT without communications with ATC; ATC could have been more urgent in its information about the traffic.




Synopsis: A300 Captain experiences an airborne conflict with an unidentified VFR aircraft at 17;000 FT during climb. ATC pointed out the traffic and evasive action is taken in compliance with a TCAS RA. Minimum vertical separation was 300 FT beneath the intruder.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: IAI1124/1124A Westwind
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level in cruise at FL360 when we felt a pressure fluctuation in the cabin of the aircraft. That feeling was reinforced by the cabin gauge showing a climb. After an uncomfortable amount of time had passed without the system returning to normal; we initiated a rapid descent to higher pressure air and monitored the cabin for the safety of our passengers. Checklists were completed in a timely manner and all necessary items were addressed. We declared an emergency in the midst of the descent as soon as we could make contact with ATC. We were vectored to a local airport and made an uneventful landing. The flight was completed with maximum attention paid to safety and passenger comfort. The anomaly is believed to be a rare occurrence caused by a faulty weight-on-wheels switch. The aircraft was taken straight to two different maintenance facilities to have the issue addressed.




Synopsis: WW24 (IAI1124) First Officer describes a loss of cabin pressurization at FL360 resulting in an emergency descent and diversion for maintenance.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing; Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Manager asked me to run a test of FMU unit. I mounted the FMU to the test bench and found unit had no discharge. I removed the unit and placed on a work bench with a note stating my findings before going home. I returned to work on Monday and the same FMU unit was mounted back on test bench. EG explained to me that FMU had been retested under Manager's direction. Only techs showing current test bench qualification in MITSE should operate or instruct test bench operation.




Synopsis: Technician reported that after testing an FMU and finding it inoperative; a Supervisor ordered it to be retested by an unqualified Technician.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching [the airport] to make a left downwind pattern for Runway 31L. As I did this I was instructed to follow a Cessna which I identified in front of me. While flying parallel to 31L; I was instructing my private student on what sort of distance we were looking for and performing our before landing checklist. I lost situational awareness temporarily and lost the Cessna; but believed I identified it further on making its base turn. I watched the aircraft pass by my wing and allowed about 30 seconds more to keep us separated. I then looked ahead of me and to my left to make sure I was clear of traffic before turning base. I instructed my student on what a proper base looked like before turning final. By then I still had not been cleared to land so I was about to query the Tower when another call came on saying they were on final with someone above them. Even though we have a parallel runway there was enough doubt in my mind I executed a missed approach; and banked to the right to stay clear of the traffic which I located under me and to my right. I exited the pattern and request instruction to rejoin. It was later I learned the Diamond I would come in close contact with was on a right base for the same runway at a different altitude and that is why I wasn't able to pick him up in my scan as I was focused on left downwind traffic. I believe the problem was caused by a variety of factors. One being that the other aircraft and I didn't see each other; and it is my opinion this close call could have been avoided if [ATC] had intervened when he saw two aircraft on base heading towards each other.




Synopsis: C152 instructor pilot reported a NMAC in the airport traffic pattern.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: SR22
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Name working local; I was working CD/CIC. I was looking at NOTAMs and filling out traffic count when I heard Name say 'This is making me nervous'. When I looked up from the computer I saw Aircraft Y rolling Runway 24 and Aircraft X descending for Runway 15. There was not adequate spacing for the crossing runways. Name asked if she should send Aircraft X around and I said; Yes!  Name then stared at the aircraft and did nothing. Aircraft X then initiated a go-around avoiding Aircraft Y. I asked Name if they would like to be relieved from position and name said 'No; I'm fine'. CPC's should be aware of cutoff points for launching crossing runway operations with arrivals.




Synopsis: Tower CIC reported a runway incursion about to happen to the Local Controller who froze. The landing aircraft went around when pilot observed the possible aircraft conflict.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Push Back
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After block out; a passenger advised our lead flight attendant that she had loose lithium batteries for her laptop in her carry on bag that had to be gate checked at the last minute. After advising ZZZ operations via the radio; the decision was made to retrieve the bag from the cargo bin so the passenger could retrieve the batteries. I opened the cockpit window and advised the gate agent to pull the jet bridge back up to the aircraft. I then advised the Lead Flight Attendant to disarm all doors and that they were pulling the jet bridge back up. In the process of disarming doors; the gate agent somehow managed to open the L1 door before the Lead Flight Attendant could get it disarmed. Being an Airbus; the door disarms automatically when opened from the outside so luckily no one was injured. Increased training and awareness for gate agents on the visual cues on the Airbus that shows that a door is armed prior to opening it.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported being notified passenger had gate checked carry-on bag containing loose Lithium Ion batteries. Jet bridge recalled to retrieve bag.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying a scenic flight with 2 passengers on board at 550 MSL with the current altimeter setting over terrain surveyed at 15' MSL; putting our ship at approximately 535/AGL at time of incident. I spotted a drone while in straight and level flight at approximately 90 knots indicated airspeed at my altitude and directly at my 12 o'clock position. The drone being very small and right on the horizon line for my field of view was very hard to see until we were within about 60 feet. At which point I banked sharply to the right and applied a significant amount of left pedal to avoid the drone from contacting the tail rotor; which it surely would have if I had not seen the drone until another second later.As a flight instructor; I also teach a Part 107 course which emphasizes drone operators to avoid just this type of situation; and I am very familiar with the regulations of Part 107 which were violated by this operator and put myself and two passengers in unnecessary danger by flying too high in a busy airspace where many other aircraft were flying the same route. Our company has been doing these flights for the last few weeks under our commercial air tour LOA and purposely fly at an altitude of 500 AGL or more to avoid this exact situation. The drone was a black quad-copter located approximately 500 meters south of the [specific spot] at the time.




Synopsis: R44 helicopter pilot on a scenic flight reported a NMAC with a drone.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Check Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After getting the weather in ZZZ [we] decided to fly a CAT III to Runway XX thinking we might not see the runway on a CAT I. Weather was X00 overcast.  We setup; briefed and flew the CAT III approach. The approach was uneventful. At about 100 feet the CA noted my sink rate was a bit high. I began to pull back on the yoke more at the same time adding some power which made the problem worse with such a light airplane. We made a bounced landing and I decided to make a go-around. As I added power we might have lightly touched again; but made a successful go-around and clean up. After clean up the CA decided to make the landing on XY.


Second narrative: Approaching ZZZ; weather was X00 OVC X miles Visibility and a slight tailwind. We did do a landing data assessment. Weather was good to accomplish a CAT III landing.  Airplane was very light due to approximately XX souls on board. FO flew [a] good approach. In the last 100 feet developed a higher sink rate. I told him to start pulling back on the yoke to break the descent. FO elected to add power at about 20 feet to break descent. This was a surprise to me. He added too much power for the circumstances. Due to the light weight the airplane accelerated forward; but still the main gear hit the runway firmly then immediately went airborne again. He pushed forward still trying to land the airplane but quickly realized a go-around was the correct thing to do so he initiated a go-around. During the go-around I believe the main gear kissed the runway again. I was in the process of taking the airplane; but he ended up doing a good go-around and I took the jet when we leveled off at 2;000 feet and I flew the rest of the flight and the landing to XY. The go-around was from XX.I should have emphasized to FO not [to] rely solely on the flare cue. My hesitation in saying that the visibility was not great and he may find the flare cue helpful. I had no idea that he would increase the power to break the descent rate and since the jet was so light it reacted much more aggressively than he expected.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported the aircraft had a bounced landing resulting in a go-around. The crew cited the handling and performance characteristics of the lightly loaded aircraft as a contributing factor.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Mountain Wave Downdraft
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 141
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: IFR flight. Encountered smooth but severe downdrafts. Advised ATC that we could not maintain altitude and was dropping below MEA for the arrival. They helped/vectored us around the mountain to clear terrain. We went from 11;500 FT MSL to below 10;500 FT MSL with a 200-700 FPM descent while we had full power and Vx climb pitch and speed (65 KIAS) with clean configuration. ATC advised us to call to talk with them because we deviated from IFR routing.




Synopsis: An IFR C172 was unable to maintain 11;500 FT MSL due to mountain waves over Southern California mountains and after asking for ATC assistance to clear terrain were advised to call because of an IFR routing deviation.