elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I told Aircraft X to expect ILS Runway 28R and descended the aircraft to FL50. I was expecting the aircraft to join the arrival and continue to the downwind. To his north/northwest; was a large moderate area of precipitation. It appeared that it would be better to turn the aircraft towards the north and take him on the east side of the weather which would provide less exposure to the growing weather in the area and provide an easy entry towards the final approach course. In doing so; I failed to amend the aircraft's assigned altitude that would be compatible with the MVA's that the aircraft would traverse on his new route. I noticed that the aircraft was descending below the MVA and issued an altitude compatible with the terrain and MVA; but not before the aircraft descended below the MVA. Honestly; I really don't know why I assigned him FL50; and even in the playback you can see I thought he was descending to 70. If I were to have kept the aircraft on the original route; there wouldn't have been any issue with the MVA. This happened in the last hour of my workweek to which I was fatigued. In the future; I would take extra steps to check altitude assigned and any clearances especially when I'm feeling fatigued.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller assigned an altitude below the MVA when vectoring to clear weather; the aircraft never actually descending below authorized altitudes.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After my pre-flight inspection; I towed the aircraft out of the hangar; closed the hangar doors and locked them; then I boarded the aircraft; started up; taxied to the run-up area and did my run-up. At this point nothing altered me that anything was wrong. I then taxied to the runway; lined up; announced my departure; then went to full power/throttle when I heard a loud metallic sound and felt a bump. I immediately withdrew the power and announced my aborted takeoff. I taxied back to the ramp; out of the way; and shut down the aircraft. When I got out I realized I had never removed the tow bar from the nose wheel; then I observed the propeller and noticed that both tips had come into contact with the bar and were damaged. I retrieved the damaged tow bar from the runway and pushed the aircraft back to the hangar with the help of some other pilots on the field. Looking back; I simply should have done another walk around of the aircraft (after the pre-flight inspection) before getting into it.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an aborted takeoff because the tow bar was still attached.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal takeoff right seat [as] Line Check Airman. Level FL360 at 10 minutes red Cabin Altitude EICAS with Aural Warning. Cabin at 10;500 feet but not climbing significantly. Transfer flight controls to left seat pilot; ran cabin altitude QRC and started [priority] descent to 15;000 feet. ATC advised. After switching to auto 1 cabin controller; seemed to stabilize at at FL240 and warning light went out on EICAS; cabin seemed to descend. Due to terrain and a stable cabin we climbed to FL190. Thunderstorm avoidance and normal approach and landing to [Runway] XXR back at ZZZ. Left seat pilot made landing. Initially; the Controller did not hear [us advising] had to [re-advise] at 15 minutes into event. Cabin was stable but fluctuating inbound. On the ground; the mechanics came to the cockpit to tell us the main PC air distribution duct was broken and not connected. This caused the inability for the aircraft to pressurize.




Synopsis: Air carrier Line Check Airman reported loss of pressurization. The crew switched pressurization controllers and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: PF on my first leg . I had just met the Captain and IRO since they operated in from ZZZ and I met them at the aircraft.  At cruise as the PF; the Captain noticed the ACARS had stopped functioning correctly.  He was concerned that we needed the ACARS and tried to look for relief in the Systems Manual; QRH and contacted Maintenance Control.  They gave no direction as to how to remedy the ACARS.  Being new to the aircraft; I had no ideas as to how to get the ACARS back in to a working condition.  The Captain and IRO discussed the matter and then the Captain decided to use his 'Captain's Authority' to reset a circuit breaker for the ACARS system.  As the PF; I mainly concentrated on aircraft control as the Captain and IRO discussed the problem.  The Captain was concerned about deteriorating weather conditions at destination and felt he needed the ACARS operable for the duration of the flight.  This action remedied the ACARS; but may have been against company procedure.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer describes the Captain resetting an ACARS circuit breaker to get the system functioning again and believes the act may have been in violation of company procedures.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fire Extinguishing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During C-Check Visit it was found that the Cargo Compartment Firex Bottle had a sense line not connected; as indicated on Task Card; Page five; Item J. I verified Safety and Security of components.

Callback: Reporter stated the Firex Bottle is located in the Forward Cargo Compartment sidewall just aft of the cargo door. The braided; flexible sense line is on the backside of the Firex Bottle. The Firex Bottle could still discharge even though the sense line was not reconnected. The A320 had flown for almost two years before returning for another C-Check Maintenance Visit. That's when a Mechanic noticed after removing the cargo compartment sidewall; the line was disconnected. His company sent out an alert to check 80-aircraft for the same condition; fortunately no similar discrepancies were found. As an Inspector; he does that particular inspection all the time and believes the line was connected at the time. The Job Card Illustrations were not a problem.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Inspector reported that during a C-Check; a Mechanic noticed a Firex Bottle sense line was not connected in the Forward Cargo Compartment right-hand aft sidewall. Inspector had signed-off for the Firex Bottle's Safety and Security on the A320 aircraft approximately two years earlier.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SPG.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SPG; Class E TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a VFR GPS Runway 7 approach to a full stop at SPG. Aircraft Y was on a base at 2;000 ft to Runway 36 at PIE.  SPG Tower authorized Aircraft X to do the published miss without coordination.  They turned directly into Aircraft Y at 2;000 feet. I had to break Aircraft Y off approach and issue a traffic alert. Both aircraft got about 1.25 miles and same altitude opposite direction. SPG is not authorized to issue the published miss without coordination. SPG Tower said that we have no control there because they are outside Class B. This also brought the aircraft into TPA Bravo [airspace] for a short period of time. Many aircraft depart out of SPG west bound through the PIE final. This is very dangerous.  Especially with increased traffic at PIE.  The Class B needs to be moved further west to ensure planes landing PIE don't crash into VFR aircraft off SPG. It is only a matter of time before a midair collision happens here. Something needs to be done. People are going to die.  This is an issue that has been reported many times. Please help us fix this. Please stop letting it go.




Synopsis: TPA TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict between an aircraft climbing out of SPG and an aircraft on approach to Runway 36 at PIE airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SHV.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SHV
ATC / advisory: TRACON SHV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the pilot not flying and the Captain was pilot flying. As we were being vectored for the approach into SHV Runway 14 ILS we noticed the RA beginning to indicate rising terrain. We then received an EGPWS terrain warning. We followed the company procedure and profile and climbed until we received no other warning or indication of rising terrain. We leveled the aircraft off at 4;300 FT and contacted Approach Control as soon as practical. We advised them of the situation and we were re-cleared to 3;100. We continued the approach with no further warnings. After landing and completing all checklists we contacted Approach Control and asked about any terrain in the area. They informed us of an 'antenna farm' in the area of our flight path; but nothing else. There were no errors or undesired aircraft states; but being in IMC we had no choice; but to comply with company policy.




Synopsis: A CRJ200 at 3;100 FT on the SHV 14 ILS received an EGPWS TERRAIN warning so they climbed to 4;300 FT where the warning ceased. ATC reported an antenna farm northeast of the localizer.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: gusty winds; 10
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MYF
ATC / advisory: Tower MYF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After doing 5 touch and goes on runway 28R; I received clearance to land. I did a wheel landing; let the tail come down; and when the aircraft was traveling slowly at about 15 kts or less; I started turning left to aim for the taxiway exit; and the aircraft kept turning to the left and did a complete 360 ground loop on the runway. The aircraft did not suffer any damage or touch any part of the aircraft to the runway; except the wheels of course; and I did not leave the runway. Due to this unexpected delay the aircraft landing behind me had to go around. I attribute this ground loop to unexpected strong crosswind; and the fact that we just put air in the tires and the aircraft was a lot more responsive to rudder control inputs that on my previous flight. She just got away from me for a moment.




Synopsis: J3 Cub pilot reported loss of directional control and a ground loop on the runway during a crosswind landing.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSN.TRACON, WI
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Snow; Icing; 2
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E MSN
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Enroute; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Fatigue
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When flying a return leg from VIH at cruise altitude 9;000 feet; I encountered greater headwinds than were either forecast or anticipated. Winds aloft and ceiling/visibility forecasts were wildly off from what was predicted. On the initial flight of the morning from ZZZ to VIH I experienced a 10 kt. headwind for the duration of the flight. I planned fuel based on calm winds for the return leg with forecasts predicting a tailwind. Per my calculations I would return with 1.5 hours of fuel. In cruise on the return leg; a 5-8 kt. headwind was experienced; reducing the fuel reserve down to one hour at destination. Weather was not as forecast at the destination with visibility and ceilings dropping at the first stop. I attempted an RNAV approach which resulted in a missed approach. When I checked on with approach control the ceilings and visibility there were 400 ft. -4sm visibility. Once at the IAF it had dropped to 200 ft. and 1.5 miles of visibility and rapidly deteriorating. After the missed approach I had 48 minutes of fuel on board. I alerted ATC by saying I had 'Minimum Fuel' at which point they gave me priority vectors for ILS at the alternate. The approach was to minimums; but with the high intensity rabbit lights it was a successful approach and I made a full stop landing with 32 minutes of fuel. Factors were Fatigue/Hypoxia from a 6 hour flying day; my radio working as not as succinctly as it should have been; and impulsivity - trying to return home before dark to increase the odds of the approach being successful. I should have obtained more fuel at the prior airport despite my calculations of 1.5 hours after the return.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported weather conditions were worse than forecasted which resulted in a missed approach and low fuel state.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Uncontrollable fuel imbalance. Just after leveling off at cruise altitude with both main tanks full and fuel in the center tank with all fuel tank pumps on; we started to notice a fuel imbalance in the mains with the right tank low. The right main tank fuel appeared to be transferring fuel into the center tank. We went to the QRH and could only get the imbalance stabilized but could not stop fuel from transferring. We diverted [to nearest suitable airport] and landed with 1;400 lb imbalance in the main tanks with the right tank low.




Synopsis: MD-82 F/O reported an uncontrollable fuel balance issue at level off. Flight diverted to nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After push back while; running the After Start checklist; we discovered the rudder was not showing full right deflection with the right rudder pedal fully depressed. When the pedals were neutral; the rudder was off center to the left. We contacted Maintenance Control; and were told to return to the gate. Upon returning; mechanics boarded the aircraft and determined that it was not a sensor problem but that the rudder was actually malfunctioning. We deplaned and later swapped aircraft.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reports abnormal rudder indications during a flight control check after pushback. Crew returns to the gate at Maintenance Control's direction and an aircraft swap is initiated.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D PSP
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working a 3 aircraft sequence for visual approach in to PSP. #1 in sequence was a [Aircraft X] and was cleared for the visual approach Runway 31L. #2 was a [Aircraft Y] and had the [Aircraft X] in sight and was cleared for the visual approach Runway 31L to follow. #3 was a [Aircraft Z]; I advised position of traffic as 1-2 o'clock 7 miles. [Aircraft Y] at 4;000 feet; the crew [of [Aircraft Z]] advised traffic in sight and I then cleared them to follow the regional jet to the same runway; cleared visual approach Runway 31L. After a bit of time I realized the [Aircraft Z] was closing in rather close to [Aircraft Y] and inquired to verify he had [Aircraft Y] in sight at 1130 and a mile and a half at his altitude; he responded; we do now and we will widen it out a bit here. I then instructed [Aircraft Z] to maintain visual separation. Nothing procedurally need be changed. Perhaps on my part; I should be more aware of the possibility of seeing the wrong aircraft. The question I would have for the [Aircraft Z] crew would be; what was your TCAS telling you with an aircraft that close and approach not telling you about it?




Synopsis: SCT Controller described clearing three aircraft for visual approaches to Runway 31L at PSP and to follow each other. The aircraft third in line; loses track of the second aircraft and comes within 1.5 miles before the Controller intercedes. The Controller wonders what the third aircrafts crew was seeing on their TCAS.