elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CDC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G CDC
ATC / advisory: CTAF CDC
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern after returning from a solo cross-country flight. The instance occurred on my fifth flight in the pattern. I was established on initial climb immediately following a touch and go. I made my radio call on CTAF announcing that I would begin my turn to crosswind. After visually clearing the area and checking ADS-B; I made my left hand turn. As soon as I rolled level I saw a white Cessna at my 1 O'clock position slightly above my altitude (by about 20-50 ft). I immediately rolled back to the North (while the Cessna continued South on an extended downwind). After resolving the situation I called the Cessna pilot on CTAF alerting him once again of my position; now at his 5 o'clock low. At this point the pilot acknowledge that he saw me at this moment following my evasive action. He took no evasive action and appeared unaware of the conflict until hearing my direct call informing him of the situation. This pilot was unfamiliar with the area and made nonstandard radio calls. He entered the downwind from 4 miles North; which had him crossing the crosswind leg of the pattern at an altitude low enough to pose a conflict. The pattern was full with a high volume of both flight training and unaffiliated traffic. The Cessna was not visible on ADS-B. Despite my radio call prior to turning crosswind; there was no acknowledgement by this pilot. The small profile of his aircraft (from being at my altitude) reduced his visibility. The white paint further matched the sun-lit desert terrain below. I believe that the Cessna pilot was unfamiliar with the area and local procedures. High traffic volume and higher-performance aircraft likely contributed to his higher workload. He lacked appropriate situational awareness and was unaware of the traffic conflict posed until after he was alerted following my evasive maneuver.




Synopsis: SR20 pilot reported that a C172 entered the traffic pattern improperly and caused a NMAC.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We received our PDClearance via ACARS per normal. However there was an 'attention route change' note on the clearance. But the route was exactly as filed. We called ATC who told us they were eliminating the LANDO fix. We said OK and re-checked our clearance which still had us filed LAX.J54.EHF; which includes the LANDO fix. We queried the Clearance Controller again. She stated this was for a 'preferential' route (I think that was the word--whatever the word; it was the same one and almost an identical scenario out of SLC to SAN earlier that same morning.) Either way in both cases; the 'route change' clearance and the filed clearance were identical. I'm sure there is a reason for this; but whatever it is; it needs to be fixed. It causes unnecessary confusion and trains one to ignore these notes. Not to mention both controllers (in SAN and SLC) could not fully explain why we were issued a route change. Actually asking them about it seemed to further muddle the situation.




Synopsis: The crew received PDC's with a 'route change' note but the routing appeared to be identical to the filed route. This happened at both SAN and SLC.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Repairman
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Date Aircraft X was departing ZZZ and the aircraft had a Gear Disagree and Door Disagree Amber Lights. The aircraft did an air return. When the aircraft landed it was determined the #2 Brake MLG (Main Landing Gear) Rod was not attached. This #2 MLG Brake was replaced in ZZZ1 on Date 1.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the B767 aircraft returned to departure airport following Main Landing Gear Disagree and Door Disagree amber lights illuminated after takeoff.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Upon returning to the aft galley after the initial beverage service; I parked the beverage cart approximately in middle of the galley. Another flight attendant entered the galley and attempted to reposition the beverage cart. The cart simply fell onto its side. As it flipped; the cart made contact with my left shin and my right foot. Ice; water; and open juices and sodas spilled all over the floor. The flight attendant and I had to return the cart to its original upright position. Upon lifting the beverage the cart; I may have strained my back; neck and shoulder. I also strained my left middle finger. We cleaned up the mess and completed the flight. I then worked a return flight and the other flight attendant was reassigned to work another flight.




Synopsis: A B767-300 Flight Attendant attempted to move a beverage cart with the brake locked and turned it over in the aft galley injuring another flight attendant. While cleaning the galley and uprighting the cart she was further injured.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First of all we had just started using the fused mode on RADAR this week. That in its self has created some complexities. We were rushed into the classroom to learn about it and then had to wait until it was implemented. This session was training a trainee on this position for his first time. The trainee had previous experience. Now to the scenario; a PAY2 was vectored for the ILS 30L approach. The aircraft was too fast and too high to continue with a legal approach so I had the trainee break him out. He issued a climb to 3;000 and a left turn to 210. This will work if you get the aircraft turned to downwind prior to APK's Airspace around SSF Airport. This turn was given just prior to APK's Airspace however the aircraft did not appear to turn right away. This aircraft crossed into APK Airspace about 1 mile. Technique wise I should have had the trainee climb the breakout to 3;500 to protect for APK's Airspace. Side note the new Fused Mode on the RADAR has not been an easy thing to adjust to for myself and several of my fellow Controllers.




Synopsis: SAT TRACON Controller experienced an airspace incursion indicating that unfamiliarity with the new 'fused' RADAR system as a contributing factor.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ROC.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
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 Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxied in; parked and stopped when directed by the ground marshaller. Shut down the remaining engine and proceeded with the parking checklist. At this time we observed the original ground marshaller give us a signal to taxi forward since he had apparently stopped us at the wrong spot. Obviously we could not do that since we were already shut down. He proceeded to connect a tow bar to the aircraft and attempted to pull the aircraft forward; all with zero communication to the cockpit. The aircraft did not move since the parking brake was set. He then ran off to get a headset; returned to plug it in only to find out it did not work. I opened the window and asked his wing walker teammate what he was trying to do. He indicated that we had to be moved a few feet forward. We agreed to use hand signals only to find out they both had no idea what the proper hand signals should be. We conducted the tow in checklist and had to yell at them out the window to install the nose wheel disconnect pin prior to getting towed. Off they run to go get a pin. Return; install the pin then attempt to pull the aircraft with the parking brake set again. I asked the wing walker if he was ready for the parking brake to be released. 'Oh yeah; please release the parking brake.' I complied; we got pulled forward a few feet and then we waited as the jetway driver started coming towards the aircraft. Once again; I yelled out the window to the wing walker to find out if they wanted the parking brake set. 'Oh yeah; please set the parking brake.' This entire evolution was just a complete comedy of errors perpetrated by this untrained ground crew. The potential for damage to the aircraft and ground personnel was extremely high. The lack of understanding displayed was staggering.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported multiple deviations from SOP during aircraft tug movement at the gate.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An Air Carrier was climbing eastbound from FAT; Standard Procedure; handed off to Sector 16/22 climbing to 100. Aircraft did not check on with ZOA sector. We attempted to establish communication; but were unable for several minutes. The aircraft remained level at 100 while flying into an area of high terrain just a few miles east of FAT Approach airspace. After several radio calls (many with instructions to climb) the aircraft was observed beginning a climb. A couple of minutes later; when communications were established; the aircraft did report the terrain in sight and that they would accept a VFR climb. The aircraft was issued a climb to FL230 and a read back was received. I believe the procedure of FAT Approach climbing departures to 100 eastbound and then transferring communication to ZOA is not safe. Before communications are transferred; the aircraft should have clearance to an altitude that is safe for their route of flight. Perhaps for eastbound aircraft; FAT should call and request permission for a higher altitude.




Synopsis: ZOA Controller described a probable MVA event when traffic departing FAT was restricted to 100 eastbound as per LOA.  The reporter suggested needed changes to the procedure.
Date: 201306
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
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; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were around the SAX VOR on radar vectors into TEB. Easterly heading descending from 6;000 FT to 4;000 FT assigned. ATC issued a new assigned altitude of 5;000 FT due to traffic. Just as we were leveling at 5;000 FT; [we] received the TCAS RA Climb. [We] notified ATC of TCAS RA climb [and we] climbed with RA to about 5;500 FT; received clear of conflict. Notified ATC and they issued a descent to 3;000 FT with a good rate.




Synopsis: G550 Captain reports a TCAS RA during arrival into TEB near SAX VOR.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying with my Private Pilot Student working on maneuvers. I noticed at first my flaps weren't responding normally. Next my comm 1 radio had a lot of static when I tried to communicate. I then switched to comm 2 and did a radio check. Someone responded and said 'loud and clear'. Moments later my transponder failed. I called up ZZZ Tower and was requesting to come in for landing. Once the Tower began to respond; comm 2 failed. I called ZZZ Tower via my phone and received a landing clearance. I landed safely and was escorted to the ramp.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor conducting training reported radio failure; transponder failure; and malfunctioning flaps.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CAE.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CAE
ATC / advisory: Tower CAE
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a visual approach we came less than 100 feet vertically of another aircraft. We received a visual approach clearance to Runway 11. Approach Controller said to be on the look out for a Cessna in the traffic pattern. We received a frequency change to the Tower and checked in. We received landing clearance with information on a VFR Cessna in right traffic on the downwind. At this point we did not have that traffic in sight yet. But the traffic was displaying on the TCAS display and it appeared on the downwind. We finished the landing configuration and checklists. The Tower was communicating with the Cessna pilot. The Cessna said he had us in sight. The Tower instructed him to follow us and continue on the downwind. About 800 feet above ground level we received 'traffic' advisory; with a +01; down arrow displayed. That is when we spotted him. It was very; very close with a right to left crossing directly overhead. I instinctively pushed the nose over to miss the other aircraft. Turning or climbing would of resulted in a hit. After landing; I noticed the offending aircraft way northwest of the airport maneuvering back towards the runway. I did call the Tower via phone. They said that aircraft has been all over their airspace tonight and was not sure if an instructor was on board. She also said the aircraft is from a satellite airport.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew experienced a Near Mid Air Collision with a small aircraft while descending for landing. The other aircraft had been pointed out by the Tower Controller and had been instructed to follow the CRJ.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We got an inflight red warning of 'CG out of aft limits.' We were operating with MEL 28-XX-XX-XX. We were aft loaded on CG (within limits) for takeoff. During normal fuel burn from inner tanks; the CG moved aft as inners burned causing an out of limit condition. The QRH directed us to take action that would have violated the terms of the MEL restrictions. Furthermore the QRH did not offer any help or insight within the parameters that we had. We thought to read the section that was not our condition but related (CG greater than 38) and found helpful info there about burning out of the outers to bring the CG forward. The QRH also suggested possible divert; but that would have lead us to a worse scenario because would have landed out of limits. So there were multiple problems here. MEL restrictions in conflict with the QRH; a cargo loading that with a normal fuel burn caused an out of CG condition; and QRH language that only gave us the help we needed by researching a condition that we did not have.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a weight and balance issue during cruise flight.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fully configured; on a stable Flaps 35 approach; tracking the localizer and glideslope; we had a pitch attitude of 7 degrees and the AOA in the HUD was well out of the 'approach band' to the slow side. The computed FMS approach speed for a 325k landing was 140 knots. We bugged the approach speed to 145-146 knots to bring the AOA to the middle of the approach band and pitch attitude to 4.5-5 degrees (tracking a 3 degree glideslope.) A normal safe landing followed.  We had the same aircraft and issue the day before on approach. On taxi from this flight we had ADC #1 and ADC #2 fail. This was written up and signed off before our return flight. We had no other maintenance issues on the flight. The training we are doing to crosscheck the AOA with our current pitch and power setting is working. Our training kicked in and made this a non-event. Both; myself with the AOA; and the First Officer without the AOA (but he has an AOA background form his past experience) were able to recognize our pitch attitude was too high and make the necessary adjustments and land the aircraft safely.




Synopsis: Captain experiences an airspeed discrepancy during approach between AOA and IAS with the AOA indicating slow. Airspeed is increased five knots bring the the AOA into the proper range. ADC malfunctions had been reported the previous day and addressed by Maintenance.