elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working LW1; departing aircraft off of Rwy 18R. . LW2; per our orders; was open to work the CRO operation to Rwy 13R. Runway inspections were in progress on Rwy 18L. D10 had advised that there was a B748 inbound to Rwy 18R. There was still several departures remaining for Rwy 18R when Rwy 18L opened. I launched 1 aircraft from Rwy 18R and put the last departure in position when the B748 was on a 6 mile final to Rwy 18R.  There was an aircraft on final to Rwy 13R who was outside the ADW box. I departed the MD80 from Rwy 18R when the aircraft landing RWY 13R was in the ADW box. I knew that it would be close but I thought that the operation was going to work.  I was wrong. I felt that separation was going to be better achieved by rolling the MD80 from Rwy 18R than sending the B748; on final to that runway; around. I was later informed by the Supervisor that any event that involves CRO is considered a significant event. Since when? Neither of the Supervisors on duty or any of the controllers working were aware of such a thing. The acting ATM had been advised by the Assistant District Manager that events involving CRO are now considered significant. The supervisor called the QA/QC department in the region and they had never heard such a thing. Shortly afterwards; there was a briefing item published that such events are now significant. While I accept full responsibility for misjudging the spacing of the two aircraft ; I do not feel as though I am solely responsible.  (See Recommendation)The TMC on shift was in the East Tower. He did nothing to help with runway inspections this morning. There was no reason why when we were landing Rwy 13R and temporarily Rwy 18R with runway inspections in progress that we were keeping as many aircraft as we were. The hat status was normal. At most; the West Tower should only have had the West jets. Day in and day out; controllers are being set up for failure during this operation by the lack of Traffic Management competency and support. I recommend that during runway inspections; all aircraft taxi to the non-inspection side of the airport for departure.  There is no reason that with as much pavement as DFW has that the concrete is not being better utilized.




Synopsis: DFW Controller described a loss of separation when IFR traffic was released; conflicting with arrival traffic to the ADW.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A fellow colleague advised that COVID vaccines were not loaded on the aircraft and they needed to be. Aircraft had already pushed; so they returned to blocks to get the vaccine loaded.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported the aircraft returned to the gate to load a shipment of vaccine that was initially forgotten.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Installation of the RH Nose Landing Gear Door bumper on Aircraft X. After installing the bumper I went back to check that the bumper was secured to door stop. I moved the center control rod out several times checking the bumper security. After being informed on [date] that the aircraft had a returned flight due to the nose gear door problems; I am unsure at this time if the maintenance action I preformed was a factor in to the return to field event.This incident happened during the COVID-19 crisis. After being off for several weeks on a normal sleep routine. We were asked to return to work on a limited and staggered work schedule. I was off work approximately 8 weeks prior. This situation caused me to be off work and on a normal sleep schedule and then returning to work for one day on a night shift schedule. I could tell that I was fatigued due to the abnormal interruption of my circadian rhythm. The task I was performing has very limited instructions in the maintenance manual. I recommend a specific task be written to install just the rubber bumper on the nose gear door stop. These rubber bumpers frequently fall off and it is a common occurrence to replace them. I also noticed that the door stop on the nose landing gear doors can cause the nose gear door to appear open and locked when in fact the over-center linkage of the door is not in its locked position. This could potentially cause a sequence issue during door operation. This situation can be easily missed.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported that after performing work on the nose gear door; the aircraft had nose gear problems in flight. Mechanic was concerned that fatigue due to changes in work schedule hours contributed to a possible error.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a flight to ZZZ. I filed an IFR plan for a direct flight at 9;000 feet. It was a smooth flight with a light tailwind. It was gentleman's IFR; a few minutes in the clouds followed by a few minutes in the clear. Getting closer; I was assigned a descent to 7;000 [feet] and then a few minutes later down to 5;000 [feet]. At 5;000 [feet]; it was mostly IMC. In an instant; my Lynx Transponder and IPAD issued a traffic warning at my 12 o'clock. same altitude. I cross checked with my G500 and made an attempt to zoom in to see how close the traffic actually was; a few pushes of the button and I realized I was already zoomed in and the traffic was indicating the same location. I shoved the nose down and descended. I'm now out of the clouds descending and nearing 4;000 [feet]. ATC issued an urgent traffic alert with traffic at my 12 [o'clock] and permission to deviate. I told ATC I was deviating and looking for traffic. I located the traffic and notified ATC that I had the traffic in sight and I would be climbing back to 5;000 feet once clear of it. The traffic looked to be doing s-turns.




Synopsis: Bonanza pilot reported executing evasive maneuvers to avoid another aircraft while on IFR flight plan in IMC.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon landing Runway 08 at ZZZ; Tower instructed us to expedite off the runway to our gate (Gate XX) due to landing traffic behind us on Runway 08. As I turned off the runway abeam Gate XX; it was observed there was a (Name) fuel truck parked in the middle of the Safety Zone for Gate XX; blocking access to Gate XX. The driver in the truck had his head down and was unaware of or presence. The Tower was informed of the situation and again instructed us to clear the runway. I was able to clear the runway completely while remaining clear of the blocked Safety Zone; allowing the traffic behind us to land. After 30 seconds; the fuel truck driver became aware of our presence and drove the truck clear of the Safety Zone. We proceeded to Gate XX. I called ZZZ Tower after shutdown to explain the situation. The Controller informed me that they have been having a problem with (Name) parking their fuel trucks in Safety Zones; denying access to gates. ZZZ is the absolute worst airport in the system for this to be allowed to happen due to the close proximity of the gates to the runway.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a fuel truck was parked in the safety zone of gate; preventing aircraft from taxiing clear of the runway after landing.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a mechanical (No Airspeed or ALT on our ISFD) that we as a crew decided it was not a safe action to continue to fly across the Atlantic at night IMC.  We had great communication with dispatch; [maintenance] and the Fleet manager. The [decision] of the fleet manager/[operations] was to continue. We as a crew felt that it was not safe so we did and air return back to ZZZ. I am still wondering why they think it was OK to continue as if we were left with only the ISFD we would only have attitude but no Airspeed or Altitude. We ran all the checklists; took things slow; properly handled the situation in a calm professional manor. The one thing we did do was dump an extra 15K (estimate) of fuel. We did not land over weight but we landed probably 10-20 K lbs under Max Landing weight.


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


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported after takeoff the standby artificial horizon was not giving any altitude or airspeed information.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LIT.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LIT
ATC / advisory: Tower LIT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On crossing the final approach fix for RNAV GPS 36 approach at LIT; GPS signal lost indication showed up. I had a backup iPad running ForeFlight with the same geo-referenced approach as well. I verified the approach course on GNS530W; G500 and iPad. All three matched. I decided that I need to go missed; to go to the published hold and then decide the next course of action. As I was about to apply full power; I broke out and right about then the GPS signal also came back. One more second and I would have applied full power to execute the missed approach. Since I had visual on the runway; I went ahead and landed. My GPS has never given me this indication since I have owned this plane in the last 1;000 hours. The next day; I successfully executed an ILS 01 at MEI to minimums without a problem. On discussing with several other pilots; they indicated that they may have had similar problems at LIT. I would request an investigation into the RNAV GPS 36 approach at LIT to make sure it does not happen again to an unsuspecting pilot.




Synopsis: BE55 pilot experiences a loss of GPS signal during a RNAV GPS 36 approach to LIT. As the missed approach is being contemplated the reporter breaks out of the overcast and the signal returns. Reporter indicates that other pilots may have had similar problems with this approach.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Shorts SD-330
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fire Protection System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Over a period of time
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Logbook Entry; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: My airline is a Part 121 and 135 Air Carrier that operates Shorts SD3 aircraft in both passenger and cargo operations. Presently their passenger service has been down for over seven months due to an engine seizure during taxi in passenger operation. The company has no money to fix the engine. Prior to that engine seizure the company has had at least six engine failures and precautionary shutdowns in flight. A couple of months ago I did a preflight inspection and found the following items to be inoperative: 1. Fire fault right test failed; 2. GPWS test failed; 3. Left and right air condition bleeds were inoperative; 4. Pitot heat was inoperative; 5. The gyro for HSI was inoperative. These items were reported to Maintenance and I was told that the company has no money or parts to fix the problem. I was forced to fly the airplane! A week later I resigned my position as Chief Pilot; also the Director of Maintenance and Director of Safety resigned because of safety. I had received reports that this airline was using automobile gas in their piston engine airplanes. I continue to see this same airplane flying and I am sure it is not airworthy. The airline's General Manager has no regard for safety and is a bully. Many other pilots feel powerless which has resulted in our resignations and report to your office.




Synopsis: The Chief Pilot of a cargo/freight/passenger air carrier operation operating Shorts SD3 aircraft resigned his position and alleges the company; due to lack of parts and resources; has failed to maintain their aircraft in an airworthy condition.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CRJ2 departed Runway 36C. I was training a Controller and he noticed that the CRJ2 did not appear to be heading to the initial way point of EBAWI; which is the first fix for that runway. When the trainee asked the CRJ2 if they were heading to EBAWI they replied that they were heading to KAYFO which is the initial way point for Runway 36R. A heading of 290 was immediately issued and traffic was called for a CRJ9 which had departed Runway 36R and was on a vector for a subsequent departure.The first problem is RNAV off the ground. The pilot of the CRJ2; when he called the OM; said the Ramp Tower told them to expect Runway 36R so they loaded that runway into their FMS. They were then taxied to Runway 36C and didn't change it in their system so that when they engaged the auto pilot it turned to KAYFO. This seems to be a semi-common problem. A runway change does not negate the responsibility of the pilot to ensure they have the correct departure runway keyed into their system. However; if CLT did not use RNAV off the ground but instead used initial headings prior to rejoining he RNAV this would not be a factor. The second factor is the FUSION RADAR we are using. At slow speeds it is hard to tell if the blue blob that represents the aircraft is turning correctly or not. Even though it updates at a faster rate it takes a bit longer to get a handle on whether the aircraft is turning or not.




Synopsis: CLT Controller described an incorrect turn taken by an IFR departure when the wrong departure runway had been programed in the FMS; noting this was not an isolated event.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: High speed rejected takeoff for a Main Deck Fire warning in Mid 1 Section at 90 knots on. Rejected takeoff and performed Red ECAM items; Rejected Takeoff Checklist and After Landing Checklist. Maintenance had changed the Number 2 Engine over the weekend prior to this event. They do not do a high-power run-up on the new engine. They only take the power to idle. When we departed on a different aircraft; they still had not determined if the smoke was due to a package or the new engine. Take the aircraft with the new engine and do a high-power run-up prior to delivering the aircraft to a crew.




Synopsis: A300 Captain experiences a cargo fire warning during takeoff and rejects at 90 knots. The right engine had been changed prior to this departure and no actual fire could be found in the cargo. The crew suspected smoke from the new engine bleed air may have been the cause of the warning.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in 14;000 [ft.] descending via the Throne arrival. I issued converging traffic 12 NM NW descending Aircraft Y leaving 13;000 for 12;000 restricted above Aircraft X on the arrival. Approximately 4 NM converging when Aircraft X was level 11;000 on arrival I saw Aircraft Y start a descent out of 12;000. I issued a traffic alert and told Aircraft X to turn right immediately to heading 280. I reissued the traffic and told Aircraft X to descend to 8;000. I Told the Hemet controller to stop the descent of Aircraft Y but separation was already lost. Aircraft X reported Aircraft Y in sight was then instructed to maintain visual separation and proceed direct CRCUS to rejoin the Throne arrival when able. The Throne arrival crossing altitude at 11;000 when aircraft are descending to 12;000 on the Disney STAR leaves very little room for error on a descent and is a collision hazard for aircraft not adhering to the arrival restrictions.


Second narrative: Aircraft X; was descending via the Disney Arrival for SNA. I had traffic from the east also descending via the Disney arrival that was going to be a tie. I vectored Aircraft X off the arrival on heading 170 and descended them to 8;000 feet to get them underneath unidentified traffic that was tracking the Disney arrival at 12;500 [ft.] and descending. Aircraft Y was descending via the THRNE arrival at 11;000. I handed Aircraft Y off to NORR and switched them to NORR. The aircraft were converging and Aircraft X was descending out of 12;000 when the NORR controller alerted me to the conflict and they called traffic to Aircraft X. I instructed Aircraft X to stop their descent and issued traffic. The aircraft crossed paths at EROCK with approximately 500 feet vertical. Neither aircraft responded to a TCAS RA. I should have stopped Aircraft X at 12;000 [feet[ when I gave them the vector to ensure they stayed above Aircraft Y on the THRNE at 11;000 [feet].


Synopsis: SoCal TRACON Controllers reported an NMAC between two SNA arrivals.