elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer remarked a rather copious amount of grease was noticed on the nose gear and each main gear; as well as the ramp area beneath each gear during his external preflight. He described it as particularly sloppy grease work. We consulted a Company Mechanic about the situation; and he remarked; in paraphrase; 'that the night Crew doesn't really care about the quality of work performed'; yet the situation didn't require cleanup.Upon engine shutdown; both aft main fuel tank LOW PRESSURE lights failed to illuminate; however; amp meter draw confirmed normal pump operation for both pumps; and both lights tested normally. Maintenance discovered a copious amount of grease in the E and E bay and suspected it was the cause of the failed LOW PRESSURE annunciation.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a large amount of grease around the landing gears and in the E&E compartment left over after midnight maintenance serviced the aircraft.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I was] doing touch and goes. First landing hard/aircraft bounced. Engine did not stop. No in-flight evidence of damage. Completed 5 more touch and goes. On landing; noted that prop tips were curled. Given that I had already completed 4 touch and goes with no obvious problems and engine had not stopped; I elected to ferry the aircraft 30 NM for inspection/repair. If engine had stopped in-flight; plan (as with all engine failures off airport) would have been to activate the aircraft parachute system.




Synopsis: A SR22 pilot landed hard on his first touch and go but continued landing practice. After the fourth touch and go; he landed at which time prop damage was discovered so he flew the aircraft 30 miles for maintenance because it had operated normally up to that point.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Utilized TAF that Dispatch used to prepare flight release.  (Closest to top of release).  Did not see later TAF that had been changed to require alternate airport for landing.  (Towards bottom of release). Departed ZZZ without required Alternate.OE Training; no flying for last 6 months (COVID-19).Information overload.  Too much material to read before a flight.  Flight release is available to pilots so close to departure time that with all other tasks required; there is limited time available to study flight release; weather; NOTAMs and all available information.  Suggestion:  Make flight info available to pilots 15 minutes earlier.


Second narrative: At the time the task was initially completed; the flight (ETA XA:25Z) did not call for an alternate per the following TAF. WSI RPM tool did not suggest that CIGS or VIS would lower. System was not fully operational with the 8-hour FCST unavailable. The METAR was trending with low CIGS and visibility between 6SM and 10SM with light winds and a 2-3 degree temp/dewpoint split.The updated TAF was not observed prior to the flight departing. I do not recall an 'Alternate Verification Alert' being received. I believe that it was my intention to add a precautionary alternate with the current FOB the aircraft. I feel that there may have been some confusion and I 'lost my place' in my workflow process while juggling flight following; answering phone calls and working the assigned dispatch releases.


Synopsis: Air carrier pilot and Dispatcher reported a required alternate airport was not filed prior to departure.
Date: 201706
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After pushing back from the gate and beginning our taxi to the runway; we received an ACARS notification along with final weights that said we were tail heavy and would need to move everyone out of the last row in coach. This seemed like an odd message for a 737-800; and since we were already taxiing; we decided to move the passengers in the hold area near the end of Runway XXR. This delayed our departure by several minutes; which put us past our EDCT (Expected Departure Clearance Time). Thankfully; ATC was able to coordinate a new time in short order; but the potential for us to have missed our window was significant. After takeoff; I decided to ask the load planner for the breakdown of cargo weights that necessitated the last minute passenger movements. After no response from the load planner; I sent a message asking the dispatcher if he could provide this data. He forwarded our request to load planning; who then sent a generic message of why the weight change was needed. I again asked for specific weight information for my records. Eventually; the load planner sent the ACARS message. The rear bin had been loaded to a far greater extent than the front; which was almost empty. I'm wondering if this was done by SABER to move the aircraft's CG aft in order to save gas due to improved aerodynamics. But if that's the case; I'm wondering if this type of loading sets up the crews or the airline for increased likelihood of tail tips; missed EDCTs; or other non-standard issues that arise from coordination of passenger movement after pushback. Additionally; these types of events serve as a distraction on the flight deck; which could impact the flow of the before takeoff to the line checklist; which I believe is already overly complicated and a hazard to flight. Thankfully; our crew worked through these challenges with the utmost professionalism. We managed these threats well; moved the passengers in an expeditious manner; and accomplished our checklists as intended. But after seeing the cargo load report; I felt compelled to write this report to bring this issue to the attention of the flight safety committees.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported being informed after gate departure that the aircraft was tail heavy and passengers seated in the last row needed to move forward.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Research
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCU (Flight Control Unit)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the unmanned aerial system pilot-in-command. The rest of our crew consisted of a UAS operator and two ground station operators monitoring research data collected by the UAS and UAS altitude and airspeed data. The flight was conducted under part 91; with a certificate of authorization to operate up to 5000 feet. The standard flight profile for our operations with this unmanned aircraft consists of a stepped climb up to 6200 feet; and then a constant descent to land. Equipment on board the aircraft measures atmospheric parameters such as CO2 levels; temperature; relative humidity; and wind speed and direction throughout the profile. On the incident flight; we flew a different profile; consisting of a constant climb up to 6200 feet; and a stepped descent down. The takeoff and initial climb proceeded normally. As the aircraft climbed through approximately 3700 feet; we observed a long plume of white smoke start emitting from the aircraft. The emission lasted for approximately two seconds. The aircraft immediately lost engine power; but the control surfaces were still functional. The operator was able to glide the aircraft to a landing without further incident. The smoke plume was caused by the aircraft's electronic speed controller (ESC) burning out. There was no visible damage to the outside of the ESC; but we inferred there is significant internal damage as it was no longer functional after the incident. There was no damage to the battery or to the airframe. There were no injuries and no damage to property on the ground. Immediately after landing; I reported the incident to the NTSB Response Operations center telephone line. I believe the incident was caused by the prolonged climb which may have overheated the ESC; or possibly by use of an ESC with an incorrect amperage rating. As a corrective action; we may have to adjust the profile to avoid such prolonged climbs in the future. We could also reposition the ESC in a location which receives more cooling airflow.




Synopsis: A UAV Pilot in Command not flying reported the UAV lost power and was glided to a landing.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: Y90.TRACON, CT
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D BAF
ATC / advisory: TRACON Y90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While providing OJTI (On-the-job Training Instructor) my trainee released an IFR departure off BAF. The aircraft was radar identified and turned on coarse but was never climbed from 3;000 to 6;000. Shortly after departure the trainee forgot that the aircraft was IFR and began to treat him as a VFR; asking him his destination; altitude leaving and altitude climbing to. He added the destination to the Y side of the data block as we do for VFR aircraft and went on to other duties.During this the trainee was struggling to work through another VFR aircraft requesting transition to a non-standard practice approach outside of our airspace and also a VFR NORDO (No Radio) aircraft that had yet to be fully resolved. I as the trainer was attempting to guide him through the other two scenarios and did not notice that the IFR aircraft had not been climbed to his requested altitude on departure.Thinking that Aircraft X was VFR the trainee switched the [aircraft] to ALB Approach while he was still level at 3;000. The aircraft shortly thereafter entered a 4;000 foot MVA. The trainee then realized he had an IFR aircraft below the MVA and tried to reach out to ALB Approach to get him climbed above 4;000. At this point with the IFR; and the two other unresolved issues I took over the position and began to clean it up. Aircraft X was too low for radio reception and came back to me asking to verify the frequency; at this point I climbed him to 4;000 feet and coordinated with ALB. The low altitude alert did not go off at any time; and I failed to issue a low altitude alert when I did resume communications with the aircraft.As a trainer I am trying to use a more soft hand while training; as they have shown to not respond well otherwise. But I seem to have gone too far the other way and will need to position myself over their strips and be more hands on to make sure that my attention does not stray too far from my responsibilities to safely work IFR aircraft. I just missed that the aircraft was in an unsafe condition as I was trying to guide them through working out the other 2 scenarios going on in the sector.




Synopsis: Y90 Controller reported that Developmental forgot aircraft was IFR and changed the display information to indicate VFR. Aircraft was not climbed as it entered a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after reaching cruise; Flight Attendant let me know that a passenger's children (10 - 12 years old) were not complying with the face mask policy. That after being asked to ensure they wear their face masks the passenger (mother) threw trash at the Flight Attendant. I said I would contact Dispatch and they should contact their ops if possible. Flight Attendant said they would proceed with the necessary paperwork. I made a PA again reminding people of the airline face mask policy. The FA let me know the passenger and children then fully complied. We continued and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported Flight Attendant advised them of passengers not complying with face mask policy.
Date: 202011
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Balloon
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were on final for Runway 25L when we noticed what we believed to be a drone flying in opposite direction and towards us.I took the airplane and applied positive input to roll the airplane into 30-35 degrees of bank to the left. We cleared a now-identified cluster of about 20 balloons.I have encountered and reported drones on final in the past; and I admit I am sensitive to the subject.The maneuver was not very much more than an S-turn except for the rate of bank.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported taking an evasive maneuver after identifying a cluster of balloons; thought to have been a UAV at first; traveling in the opposite direction towards them while on approach to LAX airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: APF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D APF
ATC / advisory: Tower APF
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 2 miles out on left base to RWY 14 at APF at 1000 ft MSL; the pilot flying in the left seat reported a close encounter with a drone. He estimated it at about 100 ft below us and not much more than a wingspan to our left. He described it as a quad copter with a body that had longitudinal stripes as if they were ribs on a wing. Subsequent online research revealed a drone meeting that description - a 'DJI Phantom 3 Professional' drone. We're not sure that is what it was; but it had that look. He didn't have a lot of time to watch it as he was the pilot-flying; so as soon as he realized we were past it; he refocused on flying.While no evasive action was necessary in this situation; the drone we encountered was certainly between 800 and 1000 ft MSL well within the Class D airspace at APF; and missed us by no more than 100 feet. We reported the encounter to Naples ATCT and they advised at least a couple of aircraft who were following us on the approach.




Synopsis: C182 Instructor reported a NMAC with a drone at 1;000 feet on left base to Runway 14 at APF.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent; Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Citation was on the SWFFT arrival at BNA and we were landing south [Runways 2L; C; R.] The pilot seemed confused by the RNAV procedures and when I questioned why he wasn't descending when he declared he was stopping at 6;000 FT as a hard altitude instead of 5;000 FT as published he said he was waiting until CORRA.After he got midfield downwind instead of heading 020 as published he turned due east on his own and the final [Controller] had to bring him back out of my airspace.This kind of stuff happens all the time on the RNAV. I know I write a lot about it but I'm getting fatigued using up my break time to document it. You have to extrapolate this to the other 40 controllers here who don't bother to file safety reports about it.Our management is actively hiding the problem because they want to look good in the eyes of the new 'Magnolia' hub. I'm about done filing about it; myself. From now on I'll be ignoring the problems and working around them just like I was told to by my Supervisor--unless there is an actual loss of separation and I need the protections [afforded by the safety reporting system].Sorry to have wasted your time.




Synopsis: An Approach Controller described what he professes to be one of numerous instances of flight crew inability and/or failure to comply with the OPD RNAV STAR procedures at BNA. He further vented his frustration to his Superiors' lack of responsiveness to this and previous reports he has submitted; citing what he feels to be a preference for political canoodling over problem solving.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot not flying; during the descent aircraft was on the left autopilot and autothrottles engaged engines were at flight idle. The right engine failed approximately at 18;000 FT. I declared an emergency using the standard 'MAYDAY' three times and requesting direct to the airport. Captain took over the ATC communications and I got my QRH and began running the 'Engine Failure or Shutdown' checklist and secured the right engine; after the checklist was complete the Captain then communicated with the flight attendants. After we did the checklist and the flight attendants were briefed we discussed the abnormality and determined that the right engine had probably flamed out because we saw a message on the STATUS page of the EICAS that displayed R ENG LP PUMP. The engine parameters were normal and [we] decided to try and restart it. We ran the Engine In-Flight Start checklist and the engine restarted at approximately 10;000 FT. We advised ATC and the flight attendants that we had the engine running again and continued to land. After landing and exiting the runway we were met by ARFF. The Captain decided to shut down the right engine and asked ARFF to look at the right engine; they said everything looked fine. The Captain again talked to the flight attendants; and passengers told them everything was ''OK' and we continued to the gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported right engine flamed out on descent. Crew declared an emergency; ran the procedure; and successfully restarted the engine.