elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PGD.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D PGD
ATC / advisory: Tower PGD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on the Final approach course cleared to land when the tower allowed a helicopter; that I was unaware of; to cross in front of me close to my altitude between me and the end of the runway.  I contacted the tower by Land Line after landing and expressed my outrage. I could not understand why they would have allowed this helicopter to traverse across the final approach course.  The tower operator I spoke with told me that the Helicopter had me in site and could maintain safe distance. The helicopter may have seen me but I was not told of the helicopter and he did NOT maintain safe distance. It was a near miss in my mind. I continued to challenge the tower operator and again asked why the helicopter was allowed to cross the final approach course instead of being made to cross at the numbers or mid field. That would seem to me to be the safe crossing point not directly in front of me when I'm on short final.  I was unaware until I talked to the tower that they did not have radar and that would probably have helped greatly to ensure that the helicopter either passed behind me or over midfield.  However; the fact that the tower does not have radar should inspire an abundances of caution from tower [personnel] in what permissions they hand out. The helicopter should have been instructed to pass behind me; over the numbers at a specified altitude or midfield. Additionally the tower at the least should have required both aircraft to have visual of each other at this point of flight. Had I seen the helicopter prior to him passing directly in front of me I would have abandon the landing and performed a go around. I continue to be mystified as to why the tower felt it was ok to traverse a helicopter across the final approach course of an inbound; cleared to land; flight. All my attention at this point is focused on landing not watching for competing traffic.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reported being upset that the Tower Controller allowed an unannounced helicopter to fly directly in front of his aircraft while on short final; at 800 feet and cleared to land.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had previously planned and briefed a visual approach to runway 20R at SNA.  The ILS was set for a backup to the visual approach.  We visually identified the airport; reported that to Socal approach and were cleared for a visual approach to runway 20R.  On final approach; the Runway Awareness Advisory System (RAAS) announced 'Approaching runway 19R'.  We confirmed that we were properly established for the correct airport/runway and continued to a normal landing.Apparently the runways were renumbered sometime during the second half of 2014.  Either the RAAS database is not up to date or the latest database is not installed in the aircraft.The announcement of the incorrect runway presented a distraction during a critical phase of flight in busy airspace.1) Add an ops note for RAAS equipped aircraft that the database may not be correct for runway 20L/R at SNA.2) Find out if the RAAS database has the correct runway numbering for SNA.3) See of the airplane has the correct RAAS database in it.




Synopsis: On short final for Runway 20R at SNA the flight crew of a Challenger was surprised by a RAAS announcement of 'approaching 19R.' The runway number had been altered and; apparently; the RAAS database had not yet been updated.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching [the airport] from the northeast at 2;300 FT. I made a radio call 7 miles out stating my intention to enter the left downwind on a 45 degree angle for Runway XX. I made additional calls at downwind; base and final. At about 200 FT above ground level and 1;500 FT from the runway I noticed a crop duster flying very low across my flight path from west to east. The crop duster flew underneath me eastbound and then turned right to line up with the taxiway. The aircraft then landed on the grass east of the runway and ahead of me. I was watching the crop duster the whole time and was ready to execute a go-around. I did not see any danger at the time so I completed my landing but did a touch and go. For additional safety I should have done a go-around and not completed the landing. I just thought it was safer to get on the ground as I did.




Synopsis: An M20 pilot was on short final after announcing his position at several points; and observed a crop duster cross underneath him and land in the grass alongside of the runway in use.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ready for push back; and while obtaining clearance from Clearance Delivery; they verified we had the clearance and then said something to the effect 'monitor Ground Control;' which was confusing as our documents led us to believe the push clearance would be given by Clearance. As I switched to Ground Control frequency; the aircraft started moving backwards as the Ground Crew started to push us to the start pad. I then checked in with Ground who stated we needed to ask them prior to push for clearance; and I stated; 'sorry we had a communication problem.' [We] pushed and rest of flight uneventful. The FAA needs to move to standardize every airfield ground push back procedures and not let local airfields run amok in their specially designed local procedures; which are confusing to aircrews and depart from industry standards. This needs to be easy and standard for aircrews; not Ground Control. BOS specifically needs to state emphatically on Clearance frequency that the aircrew contact Ground prior to push for clearance to push. This is the only location I know of that have you contact clearance as a normal course of duties. Well; why have PDC? We understand Ramp Control; fine; but this procedure is faulty and needs to change to help the pilots; not the controllers.




Synopsis: Air carrier pushing from the gate in BOS alleged the procedure for push backs involving ATC and Ramp Control are confusing and should be standardized in the NAS to avoid unneeded confusion.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
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 C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Soon after the positive rate call; (L) Reverser Unlocked Amber msg displayed. After leveling off at 10;000ft ran the QRH. Notified ATC/FA/Pax of our situation and turned back to [departure airport]. The second part of this report discusses the MEL for the Thrust Reverser System. I noticed after the second departure that MEL Maintenance section number 4 was not accomplished. Specifically referring to open CB B7 on CB panel-4 and collar it. Followed the QRH. Follow through with everything.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported returning to departure airport after receiving a (L) Reverser Unlock amber message. Reporter noted that Maintenance may not have fully complied with the MEL.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As pilot flying; we were vectored to intercept the ILS. While trying to run an approach checklist; the Captain (pilot not flying) informed me that he was unable to get any ID at all on the LOC frequency. The HSI showed a red X on both sides. We double checked our frequencies and they were correct. We informed ATC that we were not picking up the LOC and ATC replied that no one else had reported any problems. We were given a left turn back onto the downwind and were told they would vector us around again while we worked on the problem. We checked the parallel runway LOC; but didn't receive it either. I told the Captain to check a nearby VOR; and did not receive it on either side as well. The weather was BKN-OVC 010 to 020 in all of the area airport. Fuel On Board (FOB) was approximately 3;000 LBS. The Captain said we would just go into destination on an RNAV approach. I told the Captain I was not RNAV certified. After discussing the fuel; weather situation; and our lack of ability to shoot and ILS/LOC/VOR approach; we realized that we did not have much of a chance to make it anywhere within range on a visual approach. Utilizing Captain's authority; the Captain; a Check Airman and Flight Instructor; made the decision to land on an RNAV approach. An emergency was not declared with ATC. The previous leg and on approach both NAV radios functioned properly. The IMC conditions that prevailed at the time and the simultaneous failure of both NAV radios were the primary threats. No lateral or vertical deviations occurred.




Synopsis: Both of an EMB145's VOR's failed prior to an ILS approach and so using the Captain's emergency authority the Captain flew a GPS approach with a non qualified First Officer after considering the weather and fuel remaining.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
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: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ Line Maintenance mechanics were assigned Aircraft X. Flight XXXX was delayed. Lead [Mechanic] provided us the information of work. We were to accomplish #1 engine fuel filter replacement. [Lead Mechanic] provided us the engine fuel filter. We never realized that we incorrectly replaced the wrong filter. We removed and replaced the #1 engine fuel filter instead of the APU filter terminating monitor 29-XX-X-XXXX log required.Trusting our Lead; whom supplied us the #1 ENG filter we never checked or identified the correct job assignment that was required to clear the monitor. APU filter was never changed by [either mechanics]. We completed and signed off #1 ENG fuel filter R/R (Remove and Replace) instead.By not following paperwork assignment of replacing APU filter; we mistakenly followed Lead's assignment to change #1 ENG filter.




Synopsis: Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported replacing incorrect aircraft component during maintenance visit.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TMB.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TMB
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was instructed to taxi via D taxiway to Rwy 9L.  He took a parallel taxiway C instead.  Aircraft Y had been instructed to taxi via G;C; and H to the ramp.  When Aircraft Y  got to C taxiway he informed he was holding short C.  I looked up and saw Aircraft X on taxiway C near G.  By that time it was too late to say anything and he sidestepped to D and continued his taxi.  I was so busy writing up strips on other aircraft; following our new procedures; that I was not able to turn around and see the conflict.  This is a problem having Ground Control combined up with FD/CD with our new procedures.  It doesn't work well. Too much time is spent writing and looking down instead of looking up and watching for aircraft turning on the wrong taxiways or doing other unsafe procedures.  We either need to change the procedures in order to accommodate the times we combine up FD/CD with Ground Control or have more controllers working the shifts so that we have adequate coverage to safely work the traffic and use the new procedures that were put in place.  I think these new procedures are unsafe when we work the positions combined.  I saw another controller later  today having trouble working the positions combined.




Synopsis: TMB Ground Controller reports of issuing taxi instructions to two aircraft and then having them at the same intersection because one went the wrong way.  Controller was working Flight Data/Clearance at the same time and doing those functions.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon pushback and start-up in ZZZ the Wingwalker and Marshal gave the all clear salute. Problem was; the headset was still connected to the Ground Agent and he was still below. The Captain relayed the danger in what happened; but I'm not sure the guy understood what he was saying since it varied from the script of the typical push back. Had the Captain not been paying attention the incident could have ended tragically.




Synopsis: 767 First Officer reported that the Ground Marshal gave all clear signal with Ground Agent and headset still attached to aircraft.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Potable Water Storage; control; indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Had Aircraft X assigned to me and Mechanic on my shift DATE third shift. Aircraft X had an inbound write up for potable water system inop. The t/s was started on first shift DATE and continued thru second shift. Parts was changed and panels remove but when I got aircraft assigned to me and my work partner there was no work turnover in the log book or no form 10194. My work partner and I was expected to continue work on the issue with on clear understanding with what work was actually done. The event occurred because of improper turnover.Document work that is done.


Second narrative: I was assigned Aircraft X with NAME1. I was informed by my lead that there was an inbound discrepancy which was worked by 1st and 2nd shift and that parts were changed. I asked where are turnover was at; which is supposed to be documented on a company form; I was informed there was none and that he was given a verbal turnover only. I immediately informed my supervisor. We then went out to aircraft to perform RON service check and found multiple cargo panels removed which just confirms maintenance was being worked and not documented. The event occurred due to maintenance being done accomplished on Aircraft X with none of it documented. This happened across 2 shifts.Supervision and Leads/Crew Chiefs need to make sure all turnover is documented per company policy.


Synopsis: Technicians reported an aircraft in work did not have required documents and logbook entries for a pass down task completed.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Returned to [the departure airport] after N1 abnormal indications on departure. After maintenance ran a check it was determined that a T12 malfunction was the cause of the abnormal indications. An overweight landing was logged at 129;000 LBS and a VSI sink of 50 FPM.




Synopsis: After a B737-700 returned to land because of an abnormal N1 indication on takeoff; maintenance found a T12 inlet temperature probe fault.