elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Left the gate on time after getting called while sitting ready reserve. Pushback and taxi to the de-ice pad was uneventful. We got fully configured; parking break set; and then notified ground personnel we needed type 1 full body and type 4 wings and tail. Upon what it looked like the finish of type 1 application we noticed the truck and boom sitting for quite a while over our fuselage. Not to long after we thought that the deice crew had stopped spraying; we got a radio call from the head 'Iceman' in the pad. He said that the boom operator had confirmed that he had hit the top of the airplane just in front of the red beacon and made a pretty good scrape. At that time the 'Iceman' informed us we would need to return to the gate because we needed a maintenance inspection. We returned to the gate and pulled the jetbridge up allowing the passengers to deplane if necessary. We then had quite the time getting the correct lift over so that maintenance could inspect the top of the airplane. This went on for quite some time and we were then told there was going to be an aircraft swap. We started to deplane once the new aircraft arrived however we were taken off the flight for we would have timed out enroute.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain was informed in the deice pad that the deice truck boom has contacted the upper fuselage causing damage. Flight returns to the gate and the aircraft is taken out of service.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had 5 flights due within a minute of each other and were all 'in the red'. During my scan for elements in the METAR I misread AUTO for winds. The release was sent without reporting winds. When the crew was inbound for landing they reported the airport not reporting winds. I was able to retrieve reported winds on ASOS and gave it to the crew via ACARS.The cause was from the stress of having 5 flights in the red and feeling rushed. I will attempt to not let the stress or feeling of being rushed interfere with a proper scan in the future.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported an operational error occurred because of workload distractions.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: XA:30 - Aircraft blocked in. XA:45 - commence aircraft arrival walk around. XA:55 - found #4 tire showing cord on shoulder and continued walk around. XB:05 - Went to cockpit and did routine check. Checked AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) to get reference to OIL #4 tire. Read AMM 32-XX-XX-X and discussed with Maintenance Control. Found that there was no information saying that tire must be replaced before flight if first layer cord found on shoulder. Assumed that tire can be placed under OIL. XC:54 - aircraft departed. No Maintenance delay.Perhaps a bold statement on the AMM stating that Cord on shoulder not allowed and must be replaced before flight.




Synopsis: Technician reported misunderstanding reference for placing a main tire on MEL and dispatching the aircraft.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing ZZZ on the ZZZZZ departure and above 10;000 MSL ECAM indicated a loss of the Green Hydraulic System/Hydraulic System Pressure Low. Followed ECAM procedure and followed up with appropriate QRH procedure which included gravity fall of the landing gear and loss of nose wheel steering. Dispatch was notified of intent to declare an emergency; flight attendants were briefed and brief description of situation provided to the passengers. [Advised] with ATC and coordinated with dispatch for emergency equipment to be available upon arrival at ZZZ1. Requested relief from ATC from the ZZZZZ1 STAR and requested an ILS to Runway XXR. Landed without incident and cleared Runway XXR at Intersection Q. Stopped between runways XXL and XXR and waited for tow to gate.  Following arrival debriefed with all crew members aboard.


Second narrative: We were climbing out of ZZZ going directly to ZZZZZ on the ZZZZZ1 departure off Runway XXL. We were above 10;000 [feet] but not yet to FL230. We got an ECAM: HYD G RESV LOW LEVL. CA flew the plane and I did the ECAM. After completing the ECAM; I went through the QRH procedures. We were handed off to Center and we checked in. We had a Jump seater; a 757 Captain who had also flew the Airbus before and was a great asset. Between us all; we discussed our options. After considering it all we decided to continue to ZZZ1 and we [advised] with Center; gave them fuel and SOB. We continued and got priority on the arrival and approach. We performed the manual gear extension QRH and configured early due to the slow movement of flaps and slats. The Captain flew the approach flawlessly and landed perfectly. We were able to clear the runway and hold short of [Runway] XXR and then towed to the gate.


Synopsis: Flight crew stated failure of the Green Hydraulic system caused loss of hydraulic gear extension and nose wheel steering; resulting in an priority landing.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rejected takeoff due to takeoff configuration warning and slat disagree. Rejection speed was at 110kts. We had a normal preflight with a normal takeoff warning check. On taxi out I momentarily pushed the power levers to full travel and back to confirm proper takeoff configuration. We had a normal takeoff roll until just prior to 110 kts. At that point we experienced an aural takeoff warning followed by a slat disagree. I had to question how or if the aircraft would fly with an unknown slat position. I rejected the takeoff. On taxi in the slat disagree light cycled on and off several times. In conclusion; I now feel that there is a better chance of a false warning than a slat failure that would change its position. I now feel the better choice would have been to continue the take off.


Second narrative: Flaps were left where they were and we returned to a gate. Maintenance was notified and we made sure 2 wheel chocks were installed and parking brakes released to promote cooling. Fifteen minutes after chocking gear; brake temp was about 250 degrees.Takeoff (TKO) configuration warnings do not usually occur this far into the TKO roll. One has to be aware of this 'late' possibility and should continue the TKO; as per company procedures. This late configuration warning should be an 'awareness' in a pilots decision making process to help in making the decision of 'Will the aircraft fly.' One the Captain has a short time to make.


Synopsis: A MD-80 Captain checked the Takeoff Configuration Warning with no response during taxi out but at about 110 KTS the SLAT DISAGREE and Takeoff Configuration Warning alerted so the Captain rejected the takeoff then returned to the gate for maintenance and brake cooling.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In bunk; got told by Flight Attendant to go back to cockpit as we were returning to the departure airport.  When returned was informed by Captain and flying First Officer that we had lost Center hydraulics.  Pressure was zero due pumps turned off and quantity was .16 on screen.  Assisted on Hyd Qty and Loss of C Hyd Sys press checklists.  Alternate flaps; alternate gear extension; along with a little fuel dump (3K) to lower landing weight.  Was in relief pilot seat for over-weight landing.




Synopsis: A B767 First Officer reported a center hydraulic system leak resulting in a return to the departure airport for an overweight landing.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EDDF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center EDFF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During descent with autopilot and ATS (Automatic Throttle System) on; aircraft experienced momentary over speed due to suspected wake turbulence encounter in otherwise smooth air.




Synopsis: B747 Captain reported a momentary overspeed probably caused by wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After nearly a 12 hour duty day on date and over 8 hrs of actual flight time my crew and I were advised on the way to our layover hotel that one of our crew members tested positive for COVID.  Once we arrived at the Hotel the crew member that was positive was sent to another hotel [to] quarantine.  The rest of us were told we had to be back downstairs to return to base for a XE:45am pickup.  It was nearly XA:00am by this time.  I told the individual that called us we were not legal and needed our rest.  The idea of being exposed to COVID and now no opportunity to sleep was unacceptable.  He stated that we had to be on the first flight available to return to base.  We were not going to continue to argue; so we did as we were told.  He said this was just a deadhead but that wasn't the point; we needed our rest and there was another flight several hours later that potentially we might have been legal for.  We were on duty for more than 20 hours with no additional pay or compensation.  COVID or not our contract should have been honored under these circumstances most especially.  Does COVID negate FAR's and Contractual agreements?




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that after a long flight; they were told one of the crew members had tested positive for COVID-19; yet they were asked to fly the next morning with only 4 hours of rest.  Flight Attendant expressed concerns with company's handling of being exposed to COVID-19 and scheduling.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing to park after landing the right wing tip of our aircraft struck an aircraft parked adjacent to the taxiway. The aircraft was parked on the right side of the taxiway was marked with cones and I; looking cross-cockpit; thought I had clearance. There was another aircraft directly opposite on the left side of taxiway with engines running. I felt a bump as I taxied between the two aircraft and thought the aircraft with engines running must have blown some unseen debris that I taxied over. I continued for approximately 100 yards to park at the hangar and saw the damage to our right wing tip.I was distracted by the running aircraft on my left and did not pay close enough attention to the clearance from the other aircraft. In the future; I will stop and insure proper clearance before proceeding.I had taxied out the other day past the aircraft parked there. Taxiing in; the cones and aircraft appeared to be in the same position. In the future; I will not let prior events influence my assessment of the current situation.




Synopsis: While taxiing to his hangar parking spot; a PC-12 pilot was distracted by an aircraft with engines running to his left and allowed his right wingtip to hit an aircraft to his right damaging his wingtip.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Lighting Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to top of descent; an aural tone began chiming in three short beeps. It continued chiming 3-4 four times as the PF (Pilot Flying) and I searched for the cause. The fifth time the beeping occurred it was followed by a MASTER CAUTION light.I attempted several times to cancel the light and beeping by pressing the light.No systems appeared to be faulting as both the PF FO (First Officer) and I began scanning all instruments and systems including the overhead and status page for indications of a system failure. All systems appeared to be operating within normal parameters; and no other advisory lights illuminated. Unable to determine the cause of the Illuminating MASTER CAUTION LIGHT and unable to cancel the alert; I [advised ATC]. Continuous beeping and steady CAUTION light for continued for 10-15 minutes. NOTE: There isn't anything in the 757 QRH for such a situation.While reaching for my iPad the entire mount fell and knocked out the lead plug in for my headset and I was momentarily unable to transmit or receive and went to speaker and hand-held microphone. It was not until after shutdown at the gate that I determined the source of communication failure.Passing through 10;000 ft. we finally received a status message which read EICAS DISAGREE. I was also able to cancel the MASTER CAUTION and aural tone. There isn't anything in the 757 QRH for an EICAS DISAGREE situation either.Uneventful approach and touchdown ensued.I have no clue as to why the MASTER CAUTION LIGHT didn't appear when the beeping first began. Then it took several minutes of the beeping before the EICAS DISAGREE status message appeared. I was unable to find anything in the QRH concerning a MASTER CAUTION Light without any other indications; or EICAS DISAGREE Status message. Testing the light bulbs all illuminated as they should.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported observing a 'Master Caution' chime and light without any associated indication of a system malfunction.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown; Other / Unknown
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Aircraft X and was helping close the front cargo pit when hot scalding coffee came pouring down the front lavatory drain. I have lost count how many times this has happened while I was working a flight in the last few years. I notified the Captain what happen and he said he didn't know the lavatory sink drained right to the outside of the plane. He asked the Flight Attendant and she said she had a 'brain fart' and she was sorry? I'm so glad she was sorry and my face wasn't burned by this careless act!




Synopsis: Ground employee reported nearly being scalded by coffee when it came pouring down the front lavatory drain; while aircraft was being serviced.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Maintenance personnel need more training for the aircraft systems as well as troubleshooting. I have NEVER seen an airline with such sub-par training. I have requested [training] from several Directors of Maintenance (DOMs); Maintenance Managers and the Airbus representative for training. I am greeted with the same answer; 'it's going to get better and training is on its way'. I haven't seen or heard of any new training with the exception of Electrical Wiring Interconnection System (EWIS) class. [The Airbus representative] told me that our Air Carrier has plenty of training credits but doesn't use them. No event occurred but proper training will PREVENT an event from occurring.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Supervisor reported the need for more Aircraft Systems and Trouble Shooting training for their Air Carrier Maintenance Technicians working Airbus aircraft. The Supervisor noted that he has never seen an airline with such sub-par training.