elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: MD-88
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At rotation; we encountered wake turbulence from the preceding MD-88. The aircraft rolled hard to the left and triggered a momentary stick-shaker. The First Officer lowered the pitch and countered the roll immediately. We encountered the wake turbulence again at 600 FT consisting of a hard roll again to the left. The First Officer countered the roll to maintain wings level. At 1;500 FT; we hit the wake turbulence again. I advised ATC and they gave us a heading of 070 to rejoin the departure. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. In the future; if ATC issues a takeoff clearance; so soon after the preceding aircraft takes off; I should be vigilant of possible wake turbulence. I should notify ATC sooner especially during RNAV departures.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported wake turbulence encounter departing ATL in trail of an MD-88.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I unknowingly rode in a van with; and flew with a Flight Attendant who had exhibited COVID symptoms the day prior to our flight.  On [date 1]; the Flight Attendant reported from ZZZ that she had been vomiting and had a temperature above 100.  She reportedly called in sick at that time; but still flew the next day with us ZZZ-ZZZ1.  That day she also rode with us in the van; a 15 minute ride from the hotel.   Only once airborne; from ZZZ-ZZZ1; was I made aware of the Flight Attendant's situation; and reported it immediately.  I must not have all the information; because it appears that she called in sick on [date 1] with COVID symptoms; but was allowed to fly the [to] ZZZ1; then was on sick list again when she got to ZZZ1.  Because I was in close proximity to the Flight Attendant with COVID symptoms for more than 15 minutes; I called in sick for the remainder of my trip.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported concerns with being in close contact with a Flight Attendant that had called in sick the day before for COVID-19 like symptoms.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Following a normal approach to landing at a back country airstrip; and during the rollout phase it appears as though the brakes were being applied by the right seat passenger. The wheel landing (which I have done literally 1;000's of times) seemed normal until the point at which the tail should have started to settle. The tail did not settle as expected and at this point the aircraft began a very gradual left turn and with the tail rising. The prop struck the ground. There were no injuries. The aircraft had only two front seat occupants; was full of fuel and any application of brakes at that time is not something that one should do. Having had lots of experience in this aircraft I am quite comfortable that A) Somebody had their feet on the brake(s) & B) I am relatively sure it was not me.




Synopsis: C185 pilot reported a prop strike occurred on landing roll when the passenger presumably applied the brakes at an inopportune moment.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing from 7;000 feet to 15;000 feet; noticed rising engine temperatures approaching 10;000 feet; initiated course reversal and descent. Tried to diagnose engine issue; but was unable to do so before completely losing power.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported an engine failure was preceded by rising engine temperatures.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ground Spoiler
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While landing; the ground spoilers deployed and then began to stow during the rollout. I wasn't exactly sure when it occurred during the landing. The Pilot Monitoring noticed it and returned the speedbrake handle to the deployed position. I thought it was something I had inadvertently done and didn't realize exactly how the sequence occurred. I figured since I didn't have a full picture on what just happened or why; we should fly the plane to the next destination; and if it happened again; we'd watch it more closely so we could describe it. We flew the plane to our next destination. In retrospect; that was a poor decision; and I believe I should have called a Maintenance Technician and given him all the information I could and have him take a look at it.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: Flight crew experienced an apparent ground spoiler problem on landing roll out and decide to watch the spoilers closer on landing next leg.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OXC.Airport, CT
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: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground OXC
Aircraft component: Wingtip
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed my home base late afternoon and flew to OXC; arriving at approximately about a half hour later. I was flying solo (the sole occupant of the plane). Upon arriving at OXC; I requested taxi to the east side of field as I was meeting somebody there.  The tower gave me taxi instructions and I proceeded. As I went to make a 180 degree turn to park the plane into the tie down; I misjudged my clearance on the left hand side; causing the plastic wing tip to strike a chain-link fence at an angle of about 10 degrees. Immediately upon realizing what happened; I shut down the aircraft; and a line crew member in the area helped me push the plane off the fence and to a more suitable location. Inspection of the damage revealed broken strobe and nav lights; some paint damage; and a small dent on the front left corner of the plastic wing tip. I immediately called our Operations Officer and we decided to have the plane towed to the maintenance shop to get a disposition on the plane. When the plane was towed; the FBO staff were all in consensus that the damage was very minor and cosmetic; and that as long as we unscrewed the bracket for one of the lights and taped over the dangling wiring harness from the lights; the plane could be flown back. With help from the FBO; the bracket was unscrewed; the area taped over; and the aircraft was flown back to its home base without incident; arriving back still during daylight hours.It is noteworthy that multiple people noted to me that I was far from the first person to strike a fence in that area. I was shown other places where planes struck; and have been told that some planes have even practically taken the fence out. While I accept fault for misjudging my clearance on my left side; it appears as though this spot for some reason poses a problem for pilots. Perhaps further action should be taken in the future to make the parking in this area more pilot-friendly.




Synopsis: A single engine pilot taxiing and turning to a tie down spot reported striking the wingtip on a chain link fence at OXC. The plastic wingtip; nav light; and strobe were damaged. Maintenance secured the damaged area which allowed the pilot to return to his home base.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other eyewitness
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is a general report regarding some techniques I've seen from First Officers (mostly new hires). They are being taught that since we have higher target speeds it's ok to intentionally fly below the glideslope and inside of 200 ft it's ok to dive for the runway as 'we won't hit anything now'. This is leading to harder landings; either too slow or too fast target speeds and is normalizing deviance. Additionally going into LAX they are being taught to purposely land off centerline since it is a 'bumpy' runway. The training department should address these techniques.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported concern regarding some training techniques that are presented to the new hire pilots.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I contacted Scheduling once I landed in ZZZZ. I wanted to return on the outbound flight that was completely empty. Scheduling informed me that I needed to [be] with crew and stay in ZZZZ. I expressed my concerns of staying with the crew. Then getting on 2 other aircraft and staying in 2 Hotels. Scheduling wanted to know the reason for my concern. I begin to explain that I received called before I left for my trip; that I have come in contact with a crew member that tested positive [for] COVID-19. Scheduling immediately turned me over to the Duty Manager on duty that evening back in ZZZ. I tried to explain the situation; and who was the person telling me the details of my interaction. And the scheduler that told me that I had to either do the trip or remove myself from the trip.I explained to Manager the person that called me to inform me of my contact with the crew member with COVID-19.  And also explained what the Scheduler wanted me to do. Then I tried to explain the concern of the Captain of why I was on the trip in the first place. Manager explained he wanted me to continue on the trip. To stay at the hotel and continuing on with the crew on the rest of the trip. Manager informed me that someone from the COVID team would be calling me at the hotel within [X] hours. None of which ever happened.At this point of arriving in ZZZZ. The only thing I wanted to do is come home. I would like to know the reason why I could not do that. So would my crew and so would the flight deck. Please give me a reason why I had to stay in two hotels and try to self quarantine myself. After working the full flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZZ. Then staying at the hotel in ZZZZ. Then deadheading from ZZZZ to ZZZ2. Staying in a hotel in ZZZ2. And then continue on another flight from ZZZ2 to ZZZ1. No I'm not a doctor but listening to the experts; the scientist and the doctors. The best thing would have to turn me around and send me home. So please tell me why that was not done. And what was the purpose of keeping me there.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being asked to continue flying after being notified of being in contact with a crew member who had tested positive for COVID-19.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Staffing; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X had a BTB for a Captain pitot static amber EICAS warning. We quickly determined it was a probe. We have an FAK with a R/H probe in inventory. We needed an LH probe. We were able to get one from company; we installed the probe; Ops checked probe; accomplished the paperwork. Had multiple conversations with Tech and [Maintenance Control]. Deferred the aerodynamic sealant with a 767 desk. No mention in B767 MM 34-11-01 OF RII . ETOPS was noted for ice/rain (mm 30-31). When I awoke this AM; I had a friend look up in GMM ATA 34 FOR RII and then notified [Maintenance Control] of a possible situation my next step was my report. There was 1 mechanic at ZZZ that was ETOPS qualified; me who accomplished task; [and] we had another who was RII but not ETOPS.




Synopsis: Technician reported not having correct qualifications to perform and sign off the log book for a Captain's Pitot Probe replacement.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OXR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D OXR
ATC / advisory: TRACON NTD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I passed the final approach fix (FAF) well below specified minimum altitude while flying the OXR VOR 25 approach.I had not flown this approach for a long time; and chose to do so as part of maintaining general IFR proficiency. I failed to achieve a stabilized approach while on the approach segment leading to the CMA VOR; which is the FAF. At one point I realized I was higher than intended; and started a too aggressive correction toward 2;000 FT; which is the FAF crossing minimum. By the time I realized I had failed to halt my descent at 2;000; the VOR was in the zone when neither the TO nor the FROM flag was showing. Thus I thought I might already be passed the FAF. I was not sure I had passed the FAF. I was not sure I had passed the FAF below minimums until informed by ATC a few moments later.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported descending below the FAF crossing altitude during a practice VOR Runway 25 approach to OXR in day VMC. ATC detected the error.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The event was a low speed rejected takeoff. Around 80-90 kts we received a door forward cargo ECAM. As per my brief on rejected takeoff; I assumed aircraft control and rejected the takeoff. I believe the maximum speed attained was around 90 kts. The auto brakes engaged and pulled the aircraft to the right. I immediately disengaged the auto brakes and corrected back to runway center-line using both the rudder pedals and the tiller. I immediately released all brake applications because we were slowing down nicely and the next high speed taxiway was still down the runway a bit. I asked the FO (First Officer) to make a call to the Tower telling them we were aborting the takeoff and required no assistance. I applied brakes as we pulled off the runway on Taxiway XX and then on to Taxiway XY.I then looked at the brake temperatures which were around 400 and climbing slowly. I then made an announcement to the passengers explaining what had just happened and that there was nothing to worry about and that we would have to coordinate with Maintenance and allow the brakes to cool off. I then called [Maintenance Control] and explained the situation. We came to an agreement that it was best to go to a gate and get Maintenance [to] look at the door and get brake fans to cool the brakes. I then asked the FO to call Operations and coordinate for a gate; Maintenance; and arrange for brake fans. We proceeded to the gate; blocked in; and released the parking brake after we confirmed that all wheels were chalked. They took a little bit to get the fans in place. The temperatures reached around 675 on the left and around 770 on the right. Once the brake fans were in place; the temperatures came down quickly. Sometime during all of this when we were parked at the gate; the fuse plugs on the right side tires melted. After the brakes cooled off; we changed the 2 right side tires. We called Dispatch and coordinated for a new release and more gas.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported rejecting takeoff due to receiving a door forward cargo alert through ECAM.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed WIng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The overnight remote aircraft parking location for ABQ between Taxiway 'A' and the airport terminal gates presents a hazard to aircraft parking at gates [at the south side of the terminal]. To terminate an aircraft at gate [those gates] when aircraft are 'remoted'; taxiing aircraft do not have a lead-in line to follow as the extended safety zone for [these gates] to taxi way 'A' is partially blocked by the remoted aircraft. This requires aircraft to taxi between unlit aircraft with no taxi lines to follow to ensure aircraft clearance.At the western end of the remote parking spots there is a taxi line that goes around the remote parking spots and the terminal for the first two of the eight remote parking spots. This line provides taxi guidance between the first two remote parking spots and the gates but then goes into a terminal gate. Taxi lines should be painted that give aircraft a safe taxi route from taxiway Alpha to the terminal gates with aircraft parked at the remote parking spots to the south of the terminal.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain expressed concern that the remote parking area between the gates on the south side of the terminal and Taxiway A at ABQ is hazard for taxiing aircraft inbound to those gates. This is of particular concern because there is no taxi lead in line on the ramp to insure an aircraft is centered in the remaining gap. The Captain also notes that aircraft at both the terminal and the remote area are unlit; further compromising safe passage.