elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received 2 pieces of mail from the post office for flight and were immediately rejected back to the post office. The Lithium Battery label is clearly visible when it was tagged by the post office for [the air carrier] flight.




Synopsis: Airline Cargo Agent reported refusing incorrectly packaged USPS mail containing Lithium Ion batteries.
Date: 201605
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the huddle prior to the arrival of flight I learned that the only two qualified cargo loader operators were myself (also the lead) and a new hire who has been with the company [a few] months. Before that he worked for about a year doing mainline flights for [another company]. He stated that while he was signed off as loader qualified; he did not consider himself highly competent. This is not unusual; since it often takes new operators many months to master the efficient operation of a cargo loader. I instructed him to unload the front of the aircraft since it was entirely large pallets; which do not require as much finesse to manipulate.After parking the aircraft I unloaded the cans in the rear; and went to the front to assist. When I arrived I found that some of the freight had been moved; but none of it had been successfully unloaded. The handrail was down; and in places covered with blood. Obviously; I instructed [the new employee] to go into the break room; and I called the supervisor immediately on the radio. I avoided extensive descriptions at that time; because sometimes there are passengers within earshot of the radio.From what I was able to learn from the my co-workers who observed the events; [the new employee] severely pinched his hand while attempting to position the hand rail. (The rails on many of our cargo loaders are different from one another; and many have their own unique quirks.) Afterward he spent several minutes attempting to rectify the situation and do as much as he could.[Our company] at present does not have an organized training program for the cargo loader. Being signed off is apparently a matter of demonstrating basic understanding to the trainer. I do not know if the trainers have a standard protocol for determining loader operator qualifications.




Synopsis: Cargo loader operator reported a new operator was injured during unloading operations. Reporter stated inadequate training was a factor in the injury.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SUX.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On a minimums approach to RWY13; I briefed how our roll out would include clearing the runway at Bravo for the subsequent taxi to the gate. ATC closed for the night. While on roll out; and nearing the approach end of RWY 35; I noticed Bravo was not where I had expected it to be per SUX 10-9; it was maybe 100 feet south off RWY35; approximately at the top of the HS2 location. Jeppesen does not update affected products until the FAA formally publishes the changes within their products and source documentation. Issue a message alerting crew of lack of NOTAM of Taxiway B position is different from charted position. Advise NOTAM authority of the same discrepancy.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a taxi chart error at SUX airport.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At an altitude of FL370 there was a loud bang followed by the shattering of the L1 window. No pressurization loss. [Advised ATC] and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.Windshield failure.




Synopsis: A B757-200 L1 window shattered with a loud bang at FL370 so the flight diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On final approach to SEA 34R; Tower gave us a 'Low Altitude Alert' Call. Indications within the cockpit showed we were on glide slope. I informed the Tower. Approach continued to uneventful landing. I suspect the 2 aircraft that departed as we were on short final causing glide slope fluctuation; coupled with the 2.75 glide slope for Runway 34R ILS caused us to momentarily go below the threshold. Multiple departures on short final coupled with a 2.75 glide slope.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving a Low Altitude Alert call from tower while on final approach and surmised that it was caused by multiple departures while on short final to SEA airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were cleared to takeoff of Runway XXR this afternoon. We entered the runway; and my student began the departure roll. Seeing the left turning tendencies begin; I told my student to input some right rudder. My student over corrected by putting too much pressure on the rudder. I stated my controls and tried to maintain control of the plane but was unsuccessful. When I was trying to stay on the centerline of the runway; I noticed his foot was still stiff on the rudder causing us to veer to the right. I closed the throttle immediately and prepared to go off runway. As we got off the runway; I applied aft pressure on the yoke to try prevent damage to the prop and nose gear. I informed ATC that we went off the runway; possibly hit a light; and I would need to be towed. Moving forward; in order to be fully on the controls better I think I will be more assertive with my students so that they do not freeze up on the controls. I told my student this was a good learning experience for the both of us. We both learned from this event.




Synopsis: PA-28 instructor pilot reported that his student pilot input excessive rudder causing him to assume the controls to prevent a runway excursion but was unable to prevent the aircraft from traveling onto the grass; requiring a tow back to the ramp.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Communicated Minimum Fuel to ATC. Legal fuel Requirements were calculated and filed. Enroute winds were higher than expected. Upon vectoring for approach GPS A ZZZ visibility was reported via XM radio below approach minimums. Decided to communicate to ATC and request priority into ZZZ1 due to dynamic visibility fluctuations. ATC vectored for ZZZ1. He shortly called back and said tower advised good visibility south of ZZZ airport. Requested GPS-A ZZZ and landed. Min fuel was communicated due to unknown amount of sequencing delays into ZZZ1 and wanting 3rd option capability due to dynamic visibility fluctuations. Discussed with crewmember the difference between legal and slop amount of fuel for missions. The importance of communicating to ATC early.




Synopsis: CE525 flight crew report Minimum Fuel to Air Traffic Control.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUS.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: Tower TUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Night visual approach to 11L at TUS.  First Officer (FO) flying.  Clear night.  Runway acquired on downwind.  Advised tower 'runway in sight' on base.  During dogleg left turn to final the FO lost sight of his visual acquisition of the runway and lost his intercept angle to the final approach fix.  I also lost sight of the runway as my head was down configuring the aircraft and completing the Before Landing Checklist.  Tower advised of a low altitude alert. We advised tower we had lost sight and requested vectors to another approach.  Landed without incident.  Low runway light setting contributed to our loss of situational awareness.Regardless of who is flying; in the future I will not allow the aircraft to descend below the FAF altitude outside of the fix at any time; even on a visual approach.  I will also be more forceful in asking the tower to turn up the runway lights on night visuals if the lighting environment is difficult.


Second narrative: I was Pilot flying and was cleared for visual approach on downwind with runway clearly in sight. Turning base (left wing down; flying right seat) runway visual was compromised until wings level base roll out. Upon rollout both the captain and I lost visual contact with the runway. The tower advised a low altitude alert and we began a go-around and requested vectors to another approach. We were vectored to a right downwind visual approach and made a normal approach and landing. Flying in right seat airport can be monitored in right base and final turn with better visual reference.Careful attention should be made of FAF altitude before intercepting final approach course. Low runway light settings can make continued runway visual contact difficult when surrounded by bright city lights.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert from the tower on a night visual approach to TUS runway 11L.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: POU.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Other unknown
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D POU
ATC / advisory: Tower POU
Aircraft component: Tires
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was rolling out after having been cleared for the option. Smoke appeared around the aircraft that's cause was initially unclear. ATC was advised and as the aircraft continued to roll it became unclear as to whether it would be able to stop on the runway due to having damaged rear tires. The newly constructed hangar was a factor as it started to obscure the aircraft as it was slowing down. Eventually it did stop on the runway but was unable to exit; and was partially blocked from view. Allow for complete visibility of the departure end of the runway.




Synopsis: Tower Local Controller reported an aircraft landed with 'damaged tires' and they could not determine if the aircraft went off the end of the runway because their view of the runway is blocked by a new hangar.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After taking off at ZZZ as the pilot monitoring I called positive rate and the pilot flying called gear up and speed mode. I preceded to put the gear up after 10-15 seconds we got a triple chime associated with two warning messages 1. Nose door 2. Gear Disagree. Looking at the gear indications we noticed the Nose gear was the problem. The Captain called for the QRH and told me to [advise ATC] and that we had to return to ZZZ. I contacted ZZZ tower at the time and explained to them the situation and that we wanted to return to the airport with vectors while we run some checklists. We ran the QRH remaining under 200 KIAS turned the recommended hydraulic pumps to 'on' and pulled the manual gear extension and put the gear handle down after that we noticed all three were green and down. we proceeded to run the in range configuration and approach checklists. After completing that we were vectored on the ILS where we made a safe landing and exited and proceeded to gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported returning to the departure airport after a nose gear issue.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Mavic Pro
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person UAS Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flew on a stale license starting on Date with additional flights on Dates. I did not become aware until today. My license certificate with expiration date is in my office which has been closed due to the pandemic. I only noticed my expiration when logging into my FAA account. The physical FAA license (which I do carry on my person) does not have this expiration information printed on it. This can be prevented in the future by keeping a photo of the completion certificate in my wallet.




Synopsis: Commercial UAS pilot realized after several flights they had been flying with an expired Part 107 license.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A BE35 was on final cleared to land. The landing gear appeared to be up; and a go around clearance was issued. The aircraft attempted to go around but was unsuccessful in doing so and proceeded to land gear up and slid off of the runway into the grass. No injuries were reported at the time of the incident. Pilots with retractable gear; do a better job at checking gear down on final; and controllers should look for gear down at a further distance on final to provide more time for corrections.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported observing an aircraft on short final with its landing gear not lowered and issued a go around but the aircraft landed gear up anyway and slid off the runway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While descending on a 010 heading to the west of the 35 LOC when we were told we were 5 miles from James and cleared for the Converging ILS 35. Another ERJ170 aircraft was in front of us and had been previously cleared for the approach; however; they were approaching from the east while we came from the west of the localizer. They read back our approach clearance before we could respond. The Controller then issued another aircraft an instruction. Both the Captain and I realized the wrong aircraft had read back the clearance but either the other airplane or the Controller realized their mistake. Before we could query the Controller she saw that we would end up too close to the other aircraft (there was no immediate conflict) and moved us over to 30L before we could inquire of the misread instructions. Both Controllers and pilots need to insure that they are reading back the correct clearance. The other aircraft also should have realized they already had a clearance and the heading did not make sense for an aircraft arriving from the east.




Synopsis: An ERJ170 pilot reported that another ERJ170 pilot mistakenly acknowledged and began flying a clearance to MSP Runway 30 which created a conflict quickly recognized by ATC who then issued the Reporter a new clearance.