elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELM.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the cruise phase on a flight from on a heading of 315 degrees; approximately 2mi. SW of ITH at 4;500 MSL; I (PIC) and the passenger in the right front seat spotted what appeared to be traffic at approximately the same altitude appearing to be turning away; I mentally estimated at 3-4 miles away. However; it was quickly apparent this was not fixed wing or rotor traffic after the object quickly reversed course to a southeasterly heading and was now closing the separation between us; clearly now within several thousand feet not 3-4 as previously estimated. Within 15 seconds from spotting the traffic; it was within 300 feet of our aircraft and passed off the port side within 100 feet and approximately 200 feet below. As it passed; it became obvious the traffic initially spotted was a UAV; black in color with a red component. We would estimate the size as 2'X 2'. A report was filed with the Approach Controller.




Synopsis: Piper Cherokee PIC reported encountering a drone while in cruise flight at 4;500 feet just north of Ithaca; NY.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Initial cruise altitude FL180 with Washington Center. We later climbed to FL240 due to turbulence. We were given the clearance descend via the IVANE5. We set the bottom altitude of 6;000 feet and armed the descent mode 10 miles prior to top of descent. Aircraft started down and crossed MAYOS intersection at 280 knots and FL220; MAYOS has a constraint of 280 knots and cross between FL260 & FL240. Because of the initial cruise altitude of FL180; the higher altitude constraints were deleted by the FMS. After receiving a climb clearance to FL240; we manually re-entered the higher constraints. For MAYOS we entered 280KTS and a hard altitude of FL240 (our current cruise altitude). All constraints were then re-checked by both pilots and were properly displayed on the navigational display. Approximately 10 miles prior to top of descent I armed the descent mode. At some point the FMS deleted the MAYOS altitude constraint and descended to FL220 which is the next constraint for KIYEN intersection. This resulted in a low crossing over MAYOS. For many years prior to the IVAN arrival; MAYOS had a FL220 crossing altitude. I believe this helped contribute to our missing the FMS deleting the FL240 constraint over MAYOS.  While flying any RNAV arrival in the Airbus; I would suggest to continually cross check the RNAV chart to what you see on the navigational display throughout the descent. This would enable the pilots to catch any FMS constraint deletions that may occur unexpectedly after the initial verification (by both pilots) as required by SOP's.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported they overshot a charted restriction on an RNAV arrival into CLT when the FMS dropped an altitude constraint and the crew did not catch it.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAH
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground Control initially cleared the aircraft to taxi from spot 2 to hold short WW on WB. Ground control further cleared the aircraft while northbound on WB to taxi to 15R via WB NB WP. Approaching WW northbound an air carrier aircraft traveling at a high rate of speed westbound from WW or NC intruded into the intersection of WW and WB. I immediately applied firm braking to a full stop.Via interphone the flight attendants were contacted to check on the condition of the passengers and crew before we resumed the taxi. Midflight a flight attendant informed me that he had fallen in the decelerating back at IAH and had a potential injury. [The flight attendant] was able to perform his duties. On the ground the flight attendant informed me that he was sure he had been injured by the fall. I asked him to seek immediate medical attention.I have heard no more.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported a ground conflict on IAH at the intersection of WW and WB after another air carrier aircraft crossed in front of them at a high speed. A flight attendant was injured during the stop.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GYH.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D GMU
ATC / advisory: Tower GMU
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Student and instructor performing pattern training at GYH. GYH using Runway 23; left traffic. Student climbs to 1850 on downwind (TPA 1800 by LOA; not a published value in chart supplement). GMU Tower informs GYH Tower that student was flying at 1;900 (in reality it was only 1;850); and GYH Tower passes information along to aircraft. Upon returning to GMU; GMU informs of possible pilot deviation. Resulting follow up reveals GMU landing Runway 01 while GYH landing 23 creates potential conflict for IFR traffic separation. Student and instructor told of LOA regarding GYH TPA of 1;800 by GMU Tower. I suggest that this information (regarding airspace changes at GYH) be published either by NOTAM or reflected in FAA VFR sectionals and chart supplement. As it exists now; there would be no way for a pilot to know unless told directly by ATC.




Synopsis: Small aircraft instructor reported ATC informed of Tower LOA traffic pattern altitude which is not published or available on pilot resources.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Customer Service / Lobby
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Other in lobby area during check in
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Today our lobby [was] very crowded and compromised the safety of both our passengers and customer service agents.  Passenger bags are all over the place where CSRs and other passengers could easily trip on any bags.  We were not able [to] expand and practice social distancing due to inadequate staffing in the lobby.




Synopsis: Customer Service Representative reported a crowded and unsafe area in the lobby; which did not allow for proper social distancing.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: With the new bus schedule I've noticed the buses are more packed with maintenance; customer service; and ramp employees. The seats are no longer blocked to show social distancing; so now no one is respecting the social distancing policy. Are we still doing social distancing?




Synopsis: Ground employee reported a concern regarding social distancing on the employee bus.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
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: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received a call from the aft galley reporting a strong; electrical; burning smell. The Flight Attendant (FA) indicated that he could not determine the cause or location of the smell. We immediately ran the Smoke; Fire; or Fumes QRH checklist and then woke the Captain who was on break. The Captain was briefed and the relief pilot was sent to the aft galley to assess the situation. We contacted dispatch via the Satcom and asked to be conferenced in with maintenance.It took an inordinately long time to get our dispatcher on the line as he was busy on another call. Maintenance wanted us to try to isolate the problem by repowering some of the electrical system. As we were 541 miles from the nearest airport; the Captain elected not to turn anything back on that might exacerbate the smoke or fumes. The relief pilot called from the aft galley and reported a strong; acrid; electrical burning smell. At this time; ZZZ was the closest suitable airport and we [advised ATC] and requested clearance to ZZZ.Dispatch tried to persuade us to go to ZZZ1 because 'there was no customs at ZZZ'. Our FMC showed arrival times for ZZZ2 of XA41Z; ZZZ1 of XA37Z; and ZZZ of XA20Z. The decision was to proceed to ZZZ. I asked the dispatcher for ZZZ weather; NOTAMS; and landing performance data. Over the course of the diversion; dispatch contacted us several times via ACARS trying to persuade us to go to ZZZ2 or ZZZ1.After requesting landing data for XXR/Flaps 25; we received landing data for XXL/F30; XXR/F30; and YYR/F30. We finally received the correct landing data while descending out of 3000 feet. We landed without further incident and taxied to gate. There was a long delay in getting the jet bridge to the aircraft which prevented the fire crews from accessing the aft galley. The passengers were finally deplaned approximately 30 minutes after gate arrival.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew on an oceanic crossing reported experiencing galley smoke and fumes. Flight crew elected to divert to nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 0.25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] experienced primary pitch trim failure upon gear up call. As the aircraft accelerated; it became more and more difficult to maintain control and; of course; the autopilot would not work. Combine this situation with the fact that [while] on an RNAV SID we are expected to follow it precisely. Not knowing the best way to communicate with ATC concerning this; we declared an emergency. In my opinion; since we had recovered the aircraft with secondary trim; it was not really an emergency per se; but we did not want to be confined with trying to perform the RNAV SID. We may have been able to talk with ATC and try to explain all of this; however the 'e word' came quick and easy and with one word it was done. Of course we climbed to a safe altitude and did all the QRH procedures and returned to base successfully. There is much guidance on how to fly an RNAV SID normally; but not much in the way of when it is abnormal and time is at a premium. An engine failure here would have been easier but a flight control/jammed stab is entirely different and more demanding. It would be great if ATC had a word for a navigation emergency or such; just to be clear as to the nature of things.




Synopsis: Learjet 45 flight crew experienced a primary pitch trim failure on an RNAV departure; declared an emergency; regained control with secondary trim; and returned to base.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X is a MAX 8 aircraft. It was my understanding that I flew it on its first revenue flight on this flight. All operations were normal but I happened to find a 'drill tap' on the floor of the cockpit by accidentally kicking it with my foot during entry to the FO (First Officer) seat. I thought nothing of it and disposed of the errant tool and flew the flight. However I seemed to remember recently that Boeing had major issues with leaving tools and rags and [other debris] in new build aircraft. This made me think I should report it and that this and perhaps all new aircraft should be more thoroughly checked for errant tools etc. that have been left behind. A drill tap would not be something I would imagine our Maintenance Personnel would be using in the cockpit regularly; so I presume it would have been a left behind Boeing item.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 First Officer reported finding a drill tap on the cockpit floor.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After an extensive maintenance delay we were ready to push back.  I failed to notice that there were no wing walkers during pushback.  After the ground crew told me the tow bar and bypass pin were disconnected; I said 'Disconnect Headset.'  It was then I observed that we had been pushed back by only the tug driver and he waved as he drove away.  I called Ops and asked for another marshaller to give me a proper release and clearance so that I could taxi. I was told the Ramp Supervisor was going to drive out and release me to taxi.  A tug with 'Ramp Supervisor' on the door approached at my 1:00 O'clock position and a person got out and stood there with his arms out from his shoulders.  No wands (it was dark) and not at the 45 degree down position.  I repeatedly called Ops and told them he was giving me signals that meant nothing to me.  He persisted and then left; only to come back with wands and give me the same incorrect signal.  After I wouldn't acknowledge his signal (?) he left.  I asked Ops and Ramp if they could see the aircraft and they stated that they could.  I made the decision to taxi; and we departed.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports a pushback with no wing walkers and a wave off by the tug driver; not using proper signals.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff from ZZZ; the gear handle would not move up to retract the gear. Air returned to ZZZ; advised ATC; landing uneventful.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: CE-650 flight crew reported an uneventful air return due to landing gear failed to retract on departure.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE; TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: There is a potential terrain conflict on the HHOOD2 RNAV Arrival to PDX. The Airbus FMGC; when executing the arrival; descends the aircraft below the published MEA. The segment in question is from HHOOD to BLRUN when landing on 28L/R. There is no charted crossing restriction at BLRUN; the next charted restriction is at SHAFR (at 240 knots and at or above 6;700). There is; however; the listed MEA of 7;200 (in small print) between HHOOD and BLRUN which is very easily missed. The Airbus FMCG saw the path beyond SHAFR as too steep for the aircraft to accomplish under normal circumstances; so it attempts to get the aircraft as low and slow as possible to get ready for the approach to 28L/R. When looking at the FMGC before the arrival; I saw that it ignored the 240 knots requirement at SHAFR (common for the Airbus); descending and slowing the aircraft to be at SHAFR exactly at 6;700; but at 223 knots. To do this; it descends at 250 knots from 10;000 to 6;700; and then starts slowing. Unfortunately; this would have descended the aircraft below the 7;200 feet MEA prior to BLRUN; the FMCG shows the aircraft at 7;090 at BLRUN; which puts it 110 below the published MEA. If we had followed SOP and set the lowest published restriction on the arrival when cleared to 'descend via'; we would have descended below the MEA and caused a terrain conflict by follow the VNAV path. We prevented this potential by manually inserting an at/above 7;200 feet at BLRUN.  It also became a non-factor this time because PDX Approach cleared us direct to OMNSI on initial contact passing HHOOD and stopped our descent at 7;200.  I'm guessing that this hasn't come up before because this is the normal PDX approach clearance on initial contact; then stepping you down to avoid terrain as you approach the airport. However; the safety potential is there; and needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: An A320 pilot noted the HHOOD 2 RNAV BLRUN waypoint has no crossing restriction but a 7;200 feet MEA. The FMGC will attempt to descend below the MEA in order to cross the SHAFR constraint at 6;700 feet so as to make subsequent descent constraints.