elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the swing shift the [line ramp] lead removed an animal to clean its kennel. The animal that was removed from the kennel was a wild wolf on the way to [a] zoo. This wolf was released with other kennels in the room along with other coworkers in the same room. This happened because here in Denver we do not have a vendor to deal with animals. The leads are told it is their responsibility to clean all dirty cages; however the leads are given no formal training in handling animals at all let alone a wild animal. I feel that the current procedure used here in Denver is unsafe and inadequate. As far as I know we are all trained per the ramp service manual which states that we should never remove an animal from its kennel. How the local management team got this procedure approved here is beyond me; it is a very dangerous situation and only a matter of time until there is a major tragedy.




Synopsis: DEN airline ramp employee reported leads have to deal with in-transit animals; including a wild wolf that was the subject of this report. Reporter stated they had no training in how to deal with animals.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
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: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise flight received EICAS warning of Left Engine Hydraulic Pressure. Procedure called for selecting Left Engine Hydraulic pump off. Abnormal checklist completed; preceded on course to destination. Several hours into the flight; it became aware that left system hydraulic fluid was leaking down from normal; past RF limit of .75 and further. Talking to Dispatch with relay to Maintenance Control; Captain decided to turn off left hydraulic system electric pump also which slowed the reduction in quantity level. Approaching our destination in descent; system further reduced to .30 limit quantity and remained constant until gear down selection for approach and landing. Gear extension was delayed/not normal extension time; quantity reduced further past the .30 level; PTU engaged notice on EICAS. Flap extension was very slow and crew elected to land with 20 flaps in case a go around was necessary. Declared emergency with ATC; requested ground equipment be sent out; requested the opening of longest runway which was closed as per ATIS at the early hour time. Normal cabin crew and passenger PA notifications completed; landed normally; soft touchdown just past halfway down runway. Notified ground equipment that their further assistance was not required and taxied to gate.




Synopsis: A B757 EICAS alerted LT HYD SYS PRESS so the crew completed the QRH first securing the engine driven pump; then as the fluid loss continued; secured the left electric hydraulic pump to slow fluid loss conserving it for the emergency landing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying ZZZ1 direct to ZZZ [date] having departed ZZZ1 at XA:38 local as a solo flight. At 14 nm south of ZZZ; I announced my arrival into the ZZZ area on Unicom. I advised that I would plan an upwind entry to RWY XX. Two aircraft were ahead of me for arrival. Both had ADS-B out whereby I could see them on my display. I followed the second aircraft by entering the upwind leg. At that time; two aircraft announced departures on RWY 16. I advised the second aircraft that I would wait for his departure. Upon his leaving the runway; I initiated a crosswind to downwind turn broadcasting each maneuver. I commenced a base to final turn fully configured for landing. At that point a female pilot in a Super Cub advised that she was taking off on RWY XY. She was airborne and above my altitude during my final to landing. A go-around on my part would have created more of a potential collision conflict. She was quite agitated saying that she announced her intended departure; which I did not hear. Also; with my numerous position reports and no challenges from departing aircraft; I assumed that the runway was clear; and as a landing aircraft that I had the right-of-way. Using RWY XX for arrivals and RWY XY for departures is common practice at the ZZZ airport with calm or light wind conditions. It is my belief that the female pilot failed to understand my position in the pattern as well as not making visual contact with my turning aircraft prior to her departure. I do not know the aircraft tail number or pilot.




Synopsis: C-182 Pilot reported a NMAC [Near Miss Airborne Conflict] event due to missed radio calls while landing behind opposite direction departures.
Date: 201509
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Access Panel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After arrival was informed by flight attendant that a passenger reported that an access panel on top of the left wing appeared to only have one fastener holding it on and that it was fluttering in flight. Upon further investigation it was found that 15 out of 17 screws were missing. Installed fasteners in panel and made a log entry.


Second narrative: This was the panel that is over the landing gear retract actuator 551CT. Panel was secured.


Synopsis: Maintenance technicians reported that they were notified of a loose wing panel after a passenger noticed it fluttering in flight. Several fasteners were found missing from the panel.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Requiring all company dispatchers to complete parallel flight releases using a new; unfamiliar system as well as assigning company computer based training during scheduled work shifts that require us to do our position as dispatchers maintaining operational control and flight following up to 20 plus flights at a time is a safety concern as it distracts from flight following and operational control with an already increased load due to poor staffing. You wouldn't require pilots to fly same flight path using flight sim at same time while in control of aircraft or require them to do a hazmat CBT while in cruise?Someone with no knowledge of dispatch or flight planning forced an unfamiliar and unproven system on 3 airlines. Have appropriate shift overlap if requiring training during same time to where dispatchers aren't in operational control.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported the difficulty he experienced when required to maintain operational control of 20 flights while concurrent training on an unfamiliar system and completing computer based training. An understaffed Dispatch during multi-airline integration was a contributing factor.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Four F16s climbing southbound; another controller thought they climbed the aircraft to FL280; but climbed them to same altitude as traffic. The F16s showed reported at FL280. I reached out to them for an initial check in and they stated they were level at FL270. I responded you mean FL280 and they responded no; level at FL270. Apparently the other controller thought he/she climbed the aircraft to FL280 and actually climbed them to the altitude of the traffic. From my own experience; sometimes you physically look at the traffic's Mode C you mean to miss and inadvertently say the altitude of the traffic not the altitude you mean to separate the traffic.


Second narrative: A flight of 4 F16s took off southbound. Their Mode C never worked; so I needed to constantly get an altitude verification. The F16s were level at FL260 which is the top of my airspace. I pointed out the F16s to the next sector climbing to FL280 reference a Citation Jet and it was approved. I came off the line and climbed the F16s to FL270 and told him to report. I meant to say FL280. The F16s reported level at FL260 then said FL270; I thought he said FL280. I reported him level at FL280. I proceeded to switch him to the next sector. I was unaware he was at FL270 because his Mode C never worked while in my airspace. It wasn't until 5-7 minutes after that the next sector told me he was still at FL270. It was mostly an error on my part for saying the altitude I meant to climb above. The only thing that would have helped me prevent this incident is if the aircraft Mode C was working. Constantly having to check his altitude was taking some of my focus away.


Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event when assigning an altitude in conflict with another aircraft; the reports indicating the controller was thinking one altitude but in fact assigned another; perhaps a Mode C indication.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting OJT.  My Developmental instructed Aircraft X to Line Up And Wait (LUAW) but they read back 'Cleared for takeoff.'   The read back error was caught and Aircraft X was instructed to hold short of the runway.Revert back to 'Position and Hold' instead of LUAW.  The only read back error I ever had with Taxi Into Position and Hold (TIPH) was to hold short of the runway which is not a safety issue.  I've had many aircraft mistake an LUAW clearance for a takeoff clearance.




Synopsis: A DAB Tower Instructor reports that the Developmental issued Line Up and Wait to an aircraft. The pilot read back cleared for takeoff. The Controller then instructed the pilot to hold short of the runway.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Coming through approximately 3;000 ft on the visual approach to runway 23 in CLT I noticed a drone pass by my window and off the wingtip of the aircraft by about 5 to 10 feet. It was dusk and I could not tell what type or the configuration of the drone but it did have a navigation light on it and some type of strobe/anti-collision light. I notified ATC immediately and after reaching the gate I contacted CLT Approach via phone as instructed. I was told that three aircraft behind us also reported seeing the drone and that they had shut down runway 23 approaches and gone to a parallel south operation. They also advised that the [the local] police helicopter had been dispatched and was able to find an approximate location. Drones should have flight restrictions programmed into their software.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported a NMAC with a UAV on approach to CLT.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Aircraft: B737 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 ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: As we were deviating right to avoid a magenta area associated with a minor buildup we encountered an area of choppy air the quickly turned to turbulence. Airspeed was fluctuating but then continued to decrease. Corrective action was taken that led to a 3;000 foot loss. Center was advised and gave instructions to climb to 38;000 feet. Before the event I noticed the winds aloft to be a left quartering head wind; and after the event it was a left quartering tailwind. It's highly suspect that a high altitude windshear was the cause.


Second narrative: At 40;000 feet light chop; seatbelt sign on; purple area on radar (no green; yellow nor red) started deviation to the right. Chop increased to turbulence; visibility good in wispy tops; airspeed then decelerated with altitude drop fairly rapidly (believe wind at the time was 240/50). Corrective action was taken. Wings level; max power; nose down for airspeed gain as approached amber hook; altitude loss 3;000 [feet] to 3;7000 feet. As recovery began ATC said to level at 38;000 feet then airspeed rapidly accelerated. Corrected nose up and some power reduction; climbed to 38;500 feet then back to 38;000 [feet]. Event lasted approx 3 to 4 minutes; no injuries High altitude windshear; moderate turbulence; wind shift quartering tail to quartering headwind VNAV engaged and maintaining .78. No stall; but airspeed decelerated and no power available to maintain so lost altitude. At the time in right turn for deviation of magenta area on radar.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported unexpected turbulence and windshear causing a 3;000 feet altitude loss.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FTG.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN; Class D FTG
ATC / advisory: Tower FTG
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with my private pilot student (approximately 15 hours) to FTG to do touch and go. We were told to enter the right base RWY 8. I was aware that the Denver Class Bravo airspace is fairly close to the approach end of the runway. That said; I told my student to keep his base in tight. It has been years since I have flown to FTG; but from my recollection the Class Bravo airspace started at a set of power lines that ran across the ground off to the West. I told my student to keep us significantly inside of that to remain clear of the Bravo. On the base I noticed a road also just off the West end of the runway that runs North/South. I looked at the GPS and it appeared we were very near to the Class B airspace. Our airplane was displayed just inside the class Bravo divider; with some of the aircraft on the line. After the touch-and-go I queried tower to ask whether the class Bravo started at the power lines or at this road. He responded that the class Bravo airspace began at this road (Imboden Rd.). While I am fairly sure that we remained just inside of Imboden Rd. (in the class Delta) on our first base; I was still nonetheless caught off guard by how near this airspace is to the approach end of RWY 8 and I believe it is smart to fill out a NASA report for this instance; as I know I'm not the only one to have been in this situation. Ultimately on the follow-up patterns I had the student keep his base turn in even closer given this proximity to the class Bravo airspace. My unfamiliarity with the airspace and reliance on an experience from several years ago took me far closer to class Bravo airspace than I care to be without clearance. In the future I would perhaps ask another instructor who is more familiar with the airspace before going to an unfamiliar airport.




Synopsis: SR22 Instructor pilot reported encroaching (or nearly encroaching) on Class B airspace while in the pattern at FTG.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft had 6;000 pounds of cargo on a pallet in position 2 that was not accounted for on weight and balance final form.Error was not discovered until after landing when loadmaster brought the information to our attention. Landing was normal (firm); however V-speeds for landing were not accurate due to the lack of information about the aircraft actually weighing more than known by the crew.




Synopsis: After landing; the pilot of a Boeing 747 cargo aircraft was informed of a 6;000 pound loading error on the weight and balance document. This resulted in using landing speeds which were inaccurate; however the aircraft was landed safely.
Date: 201601
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown; Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While proceeding to my assigned task gate; I noticed the aircraft was on the J-line; which arrived 10 minutes early and was being held out till all ramp personnel arrived at gate. While I was wing walking the aircraft I noticed that the Jetbridge was not in proper stowbox area; so I proceeded to notify the marshal however he was unable to see me due to insufficient lighting and the jetbridge was blocking his view and was unable to see my signals; so I had to run up to front of aircraft to stop pilot and marshal from continuing to park the aircraft by then the damage had incurred.


Second narrative: Inbound scheduled to arrive XA:25 on the ground at XA:10. Both agents did not catch that the Jet Bridge was 30 yards out of the stow box; due to Maintenance (MX) working on Jet Bridge the night before. The sun was not up yet; dark out; and the yellow stow box hard to see. The Aircraft was stopped on J-Line waiting for the ramp to marshal in the Aircraft. The gate agents were in position but not familiar with this equipment. The ramp agents started at XA:00 ran out to meet the Aircraft but did not take the time to see Jet Bridge was not in the stow box. Aircraft marshaled into the cab of jet bridge; causing a hole in the left engine cowling.


Synopsis: Aircraft encountered damage to the #1 engine cowl because the ground crew was unaware that the Jet Bridge was out of position when they marshaled in the aircraft.