elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVD.Airport, RI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower PVD
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During takeoff; the Aft Entry Door annunciator illuminated; I initiated the reject at 74 knots. The aircraft was allowed to roll to; and exit on the next appropriate taxiway.  After the QRH was accomplished; I made a PA to inform the Crew and Passengers. Did a brake cooling calculation (no brake cooling required); then called the FA's to ask them to cycle the door handle. Once they did; the door annunciator extinguished.  A logbook entry was made; but I failed to contact Dispatch per the Event Reporting Requirements Table. The Assistant Chief Pilot; subsequently called and pointed out my omission. I thank him for his professionalism.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported rejecting a takeoff when the aft entry door annunciator illuminated. After clearing the runway; the Flight Attendant was asked to cycle the door handle. The warning extinguished and the flight departed. The Dispatcher was not contacted as required by the FOM.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After liftoff as the nose wheel was retracting; we heard a loud bang approximately under the Captain window. We noted airspeed disagree flags illuminated on PFD. I noted erroneous airspeed readings followed by the red stall warning tape and stick shaker warnings. The stick shaker fired continuously until after landing. We completed the memory items for unreliable airspeed. We complied with the QRC and QRH checklist. The First Officer's instruments were determined to be accurate Per QRH checklist. We requested priority handling with Departure; climbed to a safe altitude; and received vectors back to ZZZ for an uneventful landing with Captain's airspeed and altitude unreliable. We coordinated with Dispatch; informed the Flight Attendants; and made a PA to the Passengers. No Passenger issues were noted. After landing; we taxied to the Gate and were told by Ground Control that Airport Ops found that we hit a hawk. The AOA (Angle Of Attack) vane was missing from the aircraft due to the bird strike. Logbook write up was completed and Dispatch helped coordinate all parties for debrief.


Second narrative: At rotation a loud bang was heard near the Captain's side of the aircraft. After liftoff the Stick Shaker; Airspeed Disagree and Altitude disagree were displayed. Appropriate checklists were accomplished. Appropriate communication was made (ie: Dispatch; Passengers; F/As; ATC). The aircraft returned to ZZZ for a normal landing. Upon arrival at the gate it was determined that the Captain's side AOA Vane was broken off. Also; a large hawk was found on the Runway shortly after the takeoff.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a bird strike on takeoff had sheared off the Angle of Attack vane resulting in a loss of airspeed and altitude information and a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: This flight is being run late from the prior day. This flight was [assigned a new flight number] to prevent conflict with the same flight number from this flight (yesterday's) and today's. This particular type operation tends to wreak havoc with the flight planning software transmission. However today it seems to be interfering with ACARS capability. Unable to use ACARS via the ACARS message client to contact the flight. I suspect this happens frequently when a flight is run from the prior day. In this case will revert to communications via [alternate] radio.I believe the dispatch group is unaware of this glitch. Therefore the absence of the flight from the ACARS message client may be overlooked thus resulting in lost communication and loss of operational control.IT must investigate this glitch and repair. A bulletin must be published to make all dispatchers aware of this issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported losing communication and operational control of one of his flights because of a software glitch.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Flight Engineer / Second Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing on IFR clearance and using the airport obstacle departure procedure. After takeoff I inadvertently deleted the first waypoint. I was unable to identify using VOR raw data as my GNS [Global Navigation Satellite] unit was not receiving PGY VOR at this point. I advised ATC that I was not receiving the VOR and could not identify the radial and waypoint for the obstacle departure procedure and I asked for a radar vector. ATC advised I was below the minimum vectoring altitude and could not provide a heading. I then deviated from the obstacle departure procedure in an effort to remain clear of terrain while I sorted the issue out with my GNS unit. ATC then issued a 'low altitude alert' but still could not provide vectors as I was still below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude. I was clear of terrain at all times but I had deviated from the obstacle departure procedure therefore ATC issued the low altitude alert. Leaving 4;000' MSL ATC then provided a radar vector on course. I sorted out my GNS waypoint issue and proceeded on course. There was no loss of separation with terrain or traffic.




Synopsis: Pilot reported descending below Minimum Vectoring Altitude and climbed above minimum altitude when advised by ATC to do so.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MLU.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12000
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D MLU
ATC / advisory: Tower MLU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Multiple times during touch and goes today we had to take evasive action.  Two time in the last month I have had students on initial and second solos and had to take evasive action on final less than 200 feet.  This is so bad we have now given it a name 'DODGE BIRD.' Birds [of] all types.




Synopsis: Flight instructor with student pilot reported having to take evasive action multiple times at MLU airport during touch and go training.  The reporter stated this is a common occurrence at this location.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through approximately FL200; I was pilot flying;we received a Master Caution ECAS warning AFT CARGO LOOP FAULT A. Master Caution (MC) went out by itself; and then reappeared seconds later. Captain as pilot not flying began to initiate the QRH procedures for the MC when a Master Warning (MW) CARGO SMOKE illuminated. We agreed to immediately divert back to the departure airport. I began a 180 turn; Captain described event to Center. Cleared direct the airport; descend 10;000 FT. As Captain was declaring emergency with ATC I was changing destination in FMS when MW SMOKE extinguished. I pointed this out to the Captain and we both agreed to continue with the divert. No actual smoke was ever detected nor did the MW or MC ever re-illuminate. At this time; Captain was talking with ATC and company. I was flying and navigating. There was a minor discussion with ATC if an emergency had been declared; and I heard the Captain respond in the affirmative; but later events may show ATC did not understand or receive the intent of our precautionary divert and declaration of emergency. Since we were close at around 10;000 FT we were handed off the Approach. I asked for early descent and stated I requested high speed below 10;000 FT. ATC responded affirmative to high speed below 10;000 FT. Flew 325 KTS onto high key; then vectored for tight approach ILS just outside outer marker. [We] made a normal landing.


Second narrative: During climbout we received a main cargo deck smoke detector fault. This came and went twice and then became a smoke warning. We turned the aircraft around toward the airport and declared an emergency. Before we could get through the QRH checklist; the warning went out. We continued toward the airport and made an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: An A300 Master Caution alerted AFT CARGO LOOP FAULT A; followed by a Master Warning CARGO SMOKE. Both alerts extinguished but an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is in regards to the incident that occurred [date]. I was assigned to work a boost pump task card with 2 other mechanics; we all got together to figure out what we had to do to accomplish this task since none of us have done this procedure before we printed out the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) and we followed the instructions; A took the initiative to remove one pump and B volunteered to remove the other. I was assistant on the ground. We removed both pumps we had no issues; when we started the procedure to install the new pumps we got together again and reviewed the AMM for the installation procedure. A took the initiative again to install the new pump while B was assisting him. I was on the ground helping them with any tools that they needed. Since they were working on a ladder while following the AMM we called the inspector since some of this task required the inspector to be present. When A started the installation of the pump he was having a hard time with the alignment of the pin that is called out on the AMM. He informed us that the pump was not aligning properly after the second time of him saying that; that's when the fuel started pouring out of the wing. After that I was only trying to assist from the ground since we had no idea what happened or why it happened. Recommend changing the AMM procedure to require the AMT (Aircraft Maintenance Technician) or Management to defuel the aircraft before any pump removal or installation or to transfer the fuel from one wing to the other before you start this maintenance procedure.




Synopsis: Aircraft Maintenance Technician working on B-767 encountered fuel spill during installation of fuel pump.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Special Use W-ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X drone departed from EFD airport with Aircraft Z chase plane both VFR. I assumed responsibility for the San Jac position while Aircraft X and Z were east of EFD airport at 025 MSL. The aircraft request to climb to 035; then 055; then 075 and proceeded outbound to the south; southeast on a profile routing. I pulled up the requested lost link W-ZZZ procedure in my overhead database and activated the map overlay on my display. The aircraft were pointed to intra-facility sectors via automation and then verbally pointed out to Houston Center off-shore sector. The aircraft had indicated that could maintain radio communications throughout his mission profile so elected to keep him on my frequency for a little longer. I asked the pilot if he was only going to climb to 095 as published in the profile. He replied affirmative. Prior to reaching point 9 on the route; I terminated radar services with the Aircraft X and Z flight; instructing them to remain on their current beacon codes and to advise me when they were inbound back to EFD airport. I later briefed the relieving controller of the situation and didn't think anything of it. The next day I was told that the Aircraft X had climbed as high as FL280 and at some point came in close proximity to Aircraft Y on departure. The chase plane had remained below 095 as published. Apparently the UAS operators from EFD had forwarded their weekly schedule to both Houston TRACON and Center. The schedule reflected the climb to flight levels on the appropriate day and time. The schedule was disseminated to the Front Line Supervisors; however the Controllers at the position were never briefed by the Supervisor that the altitudes would be non-standard. Better dissemination of information to the actual Controllers working the operation by both management and by the operator while on frequency. I definitely would have handed the aircraft off to Houston Center had I known their intention was to climb above 095 feet.




Synopsis: I90 Controller reported failure of facility to brief Controllers on tactical activities resulted in a UAV altitude deviation and conflict.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBGL.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBGL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: During approach into SBGL our aircraft was targeted twice during the approach by two separate unauthorized lasers. On the USABA 3 approach while proceeding to FAET position; we were first targeted at an altitude of 13;000 FT. We initially saw the laser moving erratically and were able to shield our eyes before the laser targeted the aircraft. We informed Sao Paulo Approach of the incident and proceeded on the approach; five minutes later we were targeted a second time while on a vector to base. We were approximately on the 280 radial 10 NM from SBGL at an altitude of 5;500 FT. There was no advance warning in this incident and the laser was seen in my right eye and caused a momentary flash blindness in that eye lasting a few seconds. We again informed Approach. The Captain continued the approach and landing was conducted without incident. My vision was impaired for only a few seconds.




Synopsis: The First Officer of an unidentified aircraft type reported being momentarily blinded by the second of two laser flashes directed at their aircraft while on approach to SBGL.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VNY.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: S-76/S-76 Mark II
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was returning to VNY empty with no passengers or crew on board from a routine charter flight.  After being handed off from BUR; I called VNY Tower and requested a Stagg (East Side) approach landing Northwest Corner.  Tower called out traffic at my 12 o'clock.  I called traffic in sight.  There was traffic moving north from the NE corner of the field just north of the Stagg routing.  Tower informed me to fall in behind the traffic which I proceeded to do.  Upon turning inbound on Stagg; I heard a helicopter call out to Tower that an S76 is cutting across in front of him.  At this point I realized something was amiss and I may have identified the wrong aircraft.  Both aircraft proceeded on their way without further incident.  I have spoken with the pilot of the other aircraft and they tell me they had me in sight the whole time but needed to deviate course when I turned inbound.  I realize now that the aircraft was below me on approach and at night blended in with the ground clutter.  Also it was on my left side and low most of the time which is a blind spot for single pilot operations in this aircraft.  I don't know that the Controller could have handled things differently other than perhaps realizing my course was not going to take me behind the other aircraft and giving me vectors.  He probably could not have discerned the slight difference in course that would have put me in front or behind the traffic.  The aircraft I was flying has no TCAS.  I think TCAS would have prevented the situation and resolved the confusion between the two aircraft if we had it installed.  I would have realized there was a second target in the area.  I have asked that the company install a TCAS system in this aircraft to help prevent future similar issues.  In addition; I will be more diligent with defensive procedures for traffic identification and avoidance.




Synopsis: S76 pilot reports misidentifying the traffic he is to follow to the airport and cuts in front of another helicopter during a night visual to VNY.