elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Another base mechanic called me asking about an inspection that was deleted from [software]. Stated that his EPS cap check was overdue. The required 12 month cap check inspection was not on the status sheet when he was doing his annual records audit. I then checked my aircraft records and found the same issue. The Day Emergency Power Supply Routine test; ( that you did by pushing the EPS test button for 5 seconds looking for a green light ); was now in fact a 180 day Removal/replacement for routine test. I have to assume that meant cap check. When you check the D form on the AAIP; the intervals reference 180 days. When you look at the References AMM 12-A-24-52-51-00A-920A-A Task 24-50/70 it states that the cap check is a 12 months requirement. Task # 46i0500-30 D 5330 - 180 Day Emergency Power Supply Routine Test. That is a function check by pushing the button for 5 seconds and looking for a green light. I called the appropriate people and got message machines. I was trying to get clarification if the inspection was corrected. The e-mail I got was that [Company] was using the most conservative time to do the cap check. As per the AMM and the manufacturer the cap check is to be done every 12 months. This lacks the most common sense and a lack of willingness to follow the manufacturer recommendation. The inability to make clear the requirements of checking. Or look at the requirements and think; the description is not correct because the reference says 12 month cap check. Everything you do to maintain an aircraft is reference. No reference you have to look it up to see how to do an inspection or a service. This same issue could happen the next time a mechanic checks a status sheet and see's the [test] is due ( Emergency Power Supply Routine Test ) Push the Button. As a note the EPS is not due a cap check for another 90 days per the manufacturer and AMM.




Synopsis: Technician reported confusion over a check interval required on a component not being present in a check package.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: With SAT Approach; ATC vectored and descended us to 4;300 feet. We received an RA and complied per [our SOPs]. ATC said; 'We placed you within 500 feet of the traffic pattern in an effort to get you lower.'Getting us to a lower altitude should not be a priority above vectoring us in close proximity to an airport traffic pattern [or] another aircraft. They then attempted to clear us visual out of the RA. I declined; since the assigned altitude was too high and would have not been in the slot. I requested a vector and completed the approach with no issues. Dispatch was contacted per [procedures].I humbly suggest ATC offer a wider box pattern clear of airports with a normal descent rate.


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


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew reported they received a TCAS RA after SAT TRACON vectored them too closely to pattern altitude.
Date: 201504
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class B ORD
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Some phantom signal near the extended centerline of 27R. I didn't write the plane up because it seemed like the localizer frequency and aircraft is working just fine. I think it's just a random signal that's enough to trick the plane. Arriving on the WYNDE arrival to ORD; on a dogleg to final 27R; the autopilot coupled to the localizer and began a hard right turn long before the localizer was centered. It may have been sensing another signal. After disconnecting the autopilot; I turned back to the localizer and now was trying to fly visually because I didn't trust the loc signal. We did briefly go through the localizer; as I picked up the wrong runway at first; but we weren't more than a dot off on the short range and the signal seemed fine the whole time. I'm writing this report; because this seems to happen all the time with 27R in ORD. It seems like a safety issue to me.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain experiences localizer anomaly joining the LOC for Runway 27R at ORD. The autopilot appears to capture the LOC well before it is actually reached. The autopilot is disconnected and the approach flown manually with all localizer and glideslope indications appearing normal.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On departure between 5;000 feet and 6;000 feet; multiple bird strikes on the aircraft. Felt like the majority of the strikes were on the right side of the aircraft and there seemed to be a vibration coming from the airframe and/or engine. Engine parameters were normal and within limits. The vibration indicator on the #2 engine was a little higher than the #1 engine but again everything was within limits. We started a descent and right turn to return to ZZZ. An ILS was flown were an uneventful overweight landing was accomplished. Airport fire and rescue scanned the aircraft and we taxied to gate. During taxi; the #2 engine was shut down to a noticeable vibration when power was advanced from idle. After parking at the gate; maintenance looked over the aircraft and advised us that there was a hole in the lower right radome; damage to the fan blades on the #2 engine; and multiple impacts on the right wing and winglet. Dispatch was called after parking at the gate.


Second narrative: There was no abnormal engine indications but; there was a loud vibration sound.


Synopsis: An air carrier crew departed and struck a bird flock between 5;000 feet and 6;000 feet. Because of engine and airframe vibration the crew returned to departure airport where damage was found to the radome; #2 engine fan blades; the right wing and winglet.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were practicing engine failures prior to take off. I briefed him on the procedure for an engine out on the runway; and told him I would be failing one of his engines. I failed the left engine during takeoff at about 15 knots. Rather than pull power to idle; the student attempted to maintain centerline solely with use of the rudder. We left the runway surface left of the runway; and came to a stop in the grass. We taxied to the ramp; checked the gear for any damage; and returned to our home airport.In the future; I will brief the students on the procedure; and then show them the procedure myself before allowing the student to try. I will also position my hand in such a way to be able to remove the students hand from the throttles in the event of a failure to follow proper procedures.


Second narrative: During initiation of simulated single engine failure (multi-engine aircraft) on deck; student failed to take proper corrective action resulting in aircraft conducting a 90 degree heading change on wet runway and into the grass adjacent to runway ending in aircraft 180 degrees from initial heading. No damage to aircraft or airfield facilities.


Synopsis: DA-42 flight crew reported a runway excursion during a simulated engine failure on takeoff.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HPN.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was operating as Pilot-in-Command of a privately-owned Part 91 flight from [Canada] to KHPN after a personal weekend with three passengers. As per the international flight procedures; I had filed US CBP (Customs and Border Protection) eAPIS (Electronic Advance Passenger Information System) manifests and ICAO flight plans for both the flight into Canada and the return flight back into the US. Additionally; I coordinated my arrival into Canada with Canpass and landed with no issues. Upon my return flight to the US; I obtained my IFR clearance from clearance and was handed off to Boston center during my US/Canada border crossing continuing on my filed route to KHPN. This was my first Canada/US flight involving a border crossing/landing.Upon my shutdown in front of the US Customs office at KHPN; I was very informed that; in spite of my filing the appropriate eAPIS Arrival Manifest and ICAO Flight Plan; as well as obtaining my international IFR ATC Clearance; I hadn't received specific permission to enter US Airspace from the US CBP. I explained that it was my understanding that my eAPIS Arrival manifest and subsequent international IFR flight plan clearance had constituted permission and notification of my arrival into the US; which I now know is incorrect. I discussed with the Customs officer the preferred US CBP Arrival procedures; as well as the requirement for pilots to call and directly coordinate with the Customs office at the intended US Airport of Entry. After myself and all my passengers were vetted; I was given a verbal warning and was told that any future violations would not be tolerated.I thought I had completed the proper procedural research and eApis does warn you that if a confirmation email is not received then a call to the CBP port of entry office is necessary. Having said that; further procedures to follow are not easily listed on the site. I did receive an email but failed to read it as was under the mistaken understanding that the email confirmed proper manifest transmission/receipt.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot was advised by customs personnel in HPN that he had not followed proper procedures in his flight to the U.S. from Canada.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed private strip; circled in pattern for a low approach; and struck power line on east end of runway. I continued to home strip and returned to accident site by automobile.




Synopsis: C150 pilot reports striking a power line during a low approach to a private strip.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BGR.Airport, ME
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BGR
ATC / advisory: Tower BGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The FO was flying a visual approach to Runway 33 in BGR. He was descending to 2;300 feet between ELSUH and CUVOT intersections and got terrain warning. There are towers on top of these small hills near the course. He turned the autopilot off and climbed a little with some extra power and the warning went away.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a Terrain Warning during approach to BGR airport; and the First Officer disconnected the autopilot and added power to climb; after which the Terrain Warning silenced.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a personal recreational flight alone in my Experimental aircraft over the [shoreline]. I saw a stunning 'infinite stretch' of miles and miles of continuous [sea animals] on the beach shore from a half mile away. Excited to [view] this amazing never-seen before sight; I descended to about 250 ft over water and then came very close to the shore. A few times during this I turned inward over the beach and then back over water. [Later; I discovered] that I was in violation of the National Seashore altitude requirements; and after checking the fine print of the chart; it turns out that a little dotted line has 2000 ft limits! The bottom line is that I had absolutely no plans beforehand to fly that close to the shore and over the beach edge of this uninhabited area; and did so without being aware of any specific limitations.




Synopsis: The pilot of an experimental aircraft reported unknowingly descending below National Seashore altitude restrictions while observing sea life.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Received request from ZZZ hub to apply dry ice supplemental procedures after crew had signed release and headed to aircraft but before they had initialized ACARS. Approved the request with intent to notify crew and amend release once they were on the aircraft. During this time frame; got busy with other releases and departing flights with payload increases; alternate changes; etc. Forgot to get back to [Aircraft X] until after aircraft was airborne and on the way to ZZZ1.This event was caused due to simply had too much going on at one time. I had even put a flag on the flight as a reminder but still got tied up. Dispatcher suggests reducing the domestic flight desk workload.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported a Hazmat transport procedure violation due to inadequate staffing for the high departure workload.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Procedure
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: While working IDG oil level and DPI check Task Card; I was able to sign off a warning to add second mechanic to verify my work securing latches of fan cowling; as well as the original item.




Synopsis: Technician reported electronic logbook allowed him to sign off an entry that required two technicians for completion.
Date: 201409
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Two hours into the flight EICAS alerted low hydraulic quantity in the center system. System quantity was dropping at a slow rate. Notified Dispatch and Maintenance and all agreed to a return. Declared an emergency due to center system loss and overweight landing.




Synopsis: Two hours into the flight EICAS alerted a B767-300 flight crew to low hydraulic quantity in the center system. After consulting with Maintenance and Dispatch the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the briefing for the departure; I was the pilot not flying and set up the display in the -700 to show the limits of the Class B airspace associated with SFO. The initial climb from SJC has the aircraft leveling off at 5;000 FT MSL under the SFO Class B; between 25 and 30 miles from the SFO; the floor of the Class B is 8;000 FT. I set up the display so that we could orient ourselves to the airspace and fly the appropriate speeds. The Captain said that he didn't want me to display the rings of the airspace; because that wasn't a concern. I reminded him that we would be under the Class B and were required to fly 200 KTS. He said that he had been doing this for a long time and had never been violated for speed infractions. We shouldn't worry about it. I told him that; regardless of whether he had been violated; that wasn't the point. There were regulations that were set up for safety reasons; and we still had to follow them. He again told me not to worry. During the climb out; we were level at 5;000 FT and flying 200 KTS. When were given a climb to FL190; the Captain accelerated to 250 KTS out of 6;200 FT MSL under the Class B airspace. He violated the speed limit underneath the Class B.




Synopsis: A Captain violated the SFO Class B speed restriction below 8;000 FT while departing SJC after he instructed the First Officer to remove the Class B rings which were installed to prevent such a violation.