elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise phase a caution light illuminated on our caution and warning panel display. The PIC initiated action without consulting me or establishing who was in control of the aircraft and who was to do the abnormal procedures; both of which were in violation of our Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The problem was not critical in nature and his actions turned out to be correct; however they were clearly in violation of our well-established policies. Later; I noticed that the caution light was extinguished. Upon investigation I discovered that the PIC had taken it upon himself to re-energize the affected system; again without consultation and in clear violation of our procedures. Although I understand and appreciate the value of initiative in solving problems while airborne; this situation didn't call for such action and could have caused much greater harm. I find it astounding that in this day and age someone of any experience would deviate from established checklists and procedures and would be willing to 'wing it' for no good purpose. This behavior is anything but professional and calls into question the judgment of this individual.




Synopsis: A BE400 First Officer reported that his Captain responded to a non-critical caution light with memorized procedures and later re-energized the affected system again without checklist usage or consulting with him.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying with a student practicing approaches. We were flying an ILS approach when we were given a traffic advisory regarding another aircraft. I saw this aircraft from several miles away and kept an eye on it. This aircraft was flying laterally through the approach corridor at altitudes published on the ILS approach we were flying. The aircraft did not deviate from its path and continued towards us. I took controls from my student (then using a view limiting device) when the aircraft was close enough to warrant evasive action; which resulted in a 300 foot climb. I advised approach that I was climbing to avoid the traffic. I looked down and saw the aircraft at the altitude that we had just vacated with little to no lateral separation from where we just were. I believed that this aircraft would see where we were given that I saw them; however this aircraft either did not see us; or did not choose to deviate from their current trajectory despite having seen us. I should have deviated sooner to avoid this aircraft and prevent what ultimately turned into a near miss.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported experiencing a NMAC while conducting instrument approach instruction with a student using a vision-limiting device.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a delayed flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ I was called by Crew Support and asked to get to a nearby gate as soon as possible to operate the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ2. From the time I shut down my previous aircraft to the time aboard the new aircraft was less than five minutes and I was the last person aboard the aircraft. I briefed the crew quickly as we were already boarded up; and we dealt with the challenging situation of operating without an APU. With so much on my plate I had no chance to verify the crew and had to rely on Crew Support and the Gate Agent to verify that the crew's ID's had been checked. About midway through the flight the Dispatcher discovered that the FA [ID No.] was on the release and Crew Support had assigned a different FA [ID No.] to our flight without informing the Dispatcher. The release was correct on the return leg.The causal factor for this incident was a last minute scheduling change due to major crew shortages leading to confusion and loss of situational awareness in crew assignments. Contributing factors were individual last minute crew assignments at short notice that prevented sufficient redundancy in preventing flight release errors.Sufficient reserve staffing on non-holiday holidays when individuals are more likely to call in sick to prevent scrambling for crews to fill flights.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported a 'last minute scheduling change' at different gate that was already 'boarded up'. Crew completed a safe expedited departure. Crew received airborne notification of a manifest error. Flight release was corrected on return flight.
Date: 201912
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Toilet Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; MEL; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Pilot in Command conducted four flights in Aircraft X. There was an Non-essential Equipment Furnishing in the aircraft maintenance logbook listed as 25-XXXX; Forward Lav flight attendant call button inopperative; dated [date]. However; as I discovered after the flights were completed; this MEL was not the correct one for the aircraft condition. I was again assigned to Aircraft X in ZZZ and I was conducting my preflight inspection. I was reviewing MELs and maintenance records and it suddenly struck me that the attendant call button might not be possible to defer. I reviewed the Minimum Equipment List and noted that MEL 25-XXX applied to 'Cabin reading lights; light lens covers; and lav occupied lights may be inoperative provided enough light is available for safe working conditions during night operation.' Consequently the MEL did not apply to the flight attendant call button in the forward lav. A review of the records indicated that Aircraft X had conducted numerous flights since the MEL 25-XXXX had been applied to the aircraft.I checked the expiration date of the Non-essential Equipment Furnishing; noted that it was still within limits before expiration; and I didn't investigate farther. Consequently I conducted the flights listed above.I contacted local maintenance personnel and Maintenance Control and informed them of the situation; stating that I would not be able to fly the airplane until the issue was corrected and I could legally fly the airplane. Subsequently; the forward lav was locked out and deferred in accordance with MEL XX-XX; paperwork was completed and I subsequently conducted all the following scheduled flights for the day; although the flight was delayed due to the maintenance issue. This has been a recurring issue with incorrect MEL/NEF guidance from Maintenance Control which result in aircraft flying when they are legally required to be repaired; grounded; or a more a more restrictive action is due to be applied.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that an aircraft flew several times with an incorrectly applied MEL.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to cross ZZZZZ at FL 300. I entered 30;000 into the altitude window and verified LNAV; VNAV and VNAV PATH. I also checked that there was a TOD on the MFD. The aircraft did not descend via the entered criteria and we missed the altitude by 1;140 feet.[I was] distracted by the mandated vaccine that I have to get now. [I need to] pay more attention.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an altitude deviation during descent and cited distraction due to the vaccine mandate being a contributing factor.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; 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; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Maneuvering and broadcasting position reports on CTAF during maneuver over an uncontrolled airport area; other aircraft passed above and to the left of aircraft near head-on. Evasive action taken; diving right turn away from oncoming traffic. Believed other AC (Aircraft) not monitoring CTAF frequency; or in communication with ATC. Received no response on CTAF after attempting to contact the other aircraft.




Synopsis: Near miss caused by lack of communication between aircraft in an uncontrolled environment.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was training a developmental on the D side at the time of the incident. Aircraft X came over from Sector 23 at 10000 ft. level flight headed towards a terrain block at 10600 ft. The aircraft was having a hard time checking on due to low radio coverage in that area at the lower altitudes. The R-side tried to relay through another aircraft to issue a climb to 11000 ft. The R-side heard the transmission over guard but never got verification that Aircraft X received the relay to climb. No low altitude alert was issued once we talked to Aircraft X and issued the climb. Surrounding sector awareness of terrain could have helped avoid this conflict knowing they would have an easier time talking to that aircraft having better radio coverage.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reported a military aircraft entering a higher MVA due to known area of communications limitations.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: TEB Departure from Runway 24; on climb out the aircraft was automated to climb the RUUDY 4 departure on autopilot. This includes both lateral and vertical modes. After cleaning up the aircraft; the autopilot was engaged at approximately 800-1;000 FT MSL. When I noticed that the aircraft was not capturing the programmed altitude; 1;500 FT at WENTZ; I took over manual control and brought the aircraft back to 1;500 MSL. The altitude was approximately 1;740 FT MSL at WENTZ; and was back at 1;500 within 15-20 seconds. ATC cleared us to climb immediately to 6;000 FT; so the rest of the departure procedure was not flown. Going forward; very close monitoring of the automation is critical to accomplish the procedure; and correct for any autopilot issues. Also; engaging the autopilot as soon as possible after 400 FT will give the automation the best chance for success on a quick level off.




Synopsis: A Falcon 900 autopilot failed to capture 1;500 FT on the TEB RUUDY 4 SID so the Captain disconnected the autopilot and manually returned to the SID altitude constraint.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to the payload and weight limitations; I planned a flight as a Redispatch Flight; with a total fuel of 309;910 lbs and a planned arrival fuel of 19;946 lbs; which included 2000 lbs of Dispatch Add fuel and 15 minutes of Hold fuel. Normally on a redispatch flight I specify a fuel load instead of add fuel to dispatch add; to allow for a 'Redispatch Buffer'; however due to limitations of the Flight Planning system; I was unable to do so on this particular flight; because if I had done so the system would not calculate a flight plan. Planned fuel at the flights redispatch point was 49;399 lbs.When I walked in for my shift the next morning; I learned that the flight had overburned by 4000 lbs and had only approximately 45;000 lbs at his redispatch point. Furthermore; the dispatcher who was running the analysis at the redispatch point ran several scenarios to try to get a redispatch fuel without success. Because of this; the flight nearly diverted. After a group discussion of qualified dispatchers; the dispatcher was finally able to get a point aloft flight plan to run; which provided sufficient fuel for redispatch. I looked at the flight after the incident and found that planned numbers on the flight were lower than the Dispatch release by nearly 2000 lbs. Given the tightness of these ultra-long haul flights to begin with; this is very concerning to me.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher and First Officer reported an issue with the company dispatch computer system which does not reflect accurate fuel burns on specific international flights and sometimes jeopardizes legal re-dispatch points.
Date: 201408
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working Y galley and we were finishing the first meal service. I was putting away the last liquor cart back to its place. I was maneuvering it when it lost its balance and tipped over. I was standing next to it and it was too heavy for me to control back up. My foot got caught underneath. The pain was excruciating and my foot was bleeding profusely. An announcement was made for medical professional help and they attended to me by stopping the bleeding first and then cleaning the wound and bandaging my foot. They also gave me painkillers. I remained seated with my leg elevated for the rest of the flight. On arrival I was taken to hospital by the paramedics where I was diagnosed with a left first metatarsal fracture with laceration.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reports being injured in flight when a cart she is attempting to stow tips over on her leg.
Date: 202108
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: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing touch and go's at ZZZ and Runway XX was in use. After my first touch and go; I remained in the pattern; and I was on left downwind for Runway XX when I heard another aircraft with the '[FBO]' call sign calling on a 3 mile straight in for Runway XX. I decided to extend my downwind to let him pass; and I said it on the frequency that I was still on the downwind for Runway XX and would extend my downwind for the traffic on the straight in Runway XX. Aircraft Y said that he was going to the left downwind for Runway XY. I was quite confused but continued to Runway XX as it was the best runway given the wind; and everyone else was using [Runway] XX. When I turn final; I asked 'Is there anybody on final for [Runway] XY?' And I also said that I was on final for [Runway] XX; the opposite runway. Aircraft Y answered me but he was unclear. After he finished talking I said once again that I was on short final for Runway XX. I touched down; and while I was braking; I finally spot Aircraft Y; right in front of me; on short final for Runway XY. I expected him to go around as I was still on the runway but he did not; so I expedited my turn to vacate the runway. Shortly after I crossed the hold short line; he touched down on the opposite runway I just landed on. Also; in the pattern was company flight. He was leaving the area during the event but heard the situation over the radio.After the investigation it was clear the other pilot violated right of way rule and landed in reduced safety standards.




Synopsis: PA-28 student pilot reported expedited taxi to exit runway when another aircraft landed on the opposing runway without clearly stating intentions.