elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 F Executive 21
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 1 hour 40 minutes into flight; during cruise; there was an over voltage indication. While trouble shooting the issue; there was a pop noise and a puff of smoke from the right side under the glare shield. The smoke did not continue on after the initial pop. [Advised ATC]; shed all non essential electric load; pulled the alternator CB; received vectors toward closest airfield and landed safely. Landing gear; flaps; and boost pump all worked normal with battery power.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported diverting due to an alternator failure.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were descending along the ZEEKK arrival into IAH. Crossing SOFFT we were cleared the ILS Runway 27. When we loaded the approach we choose SILLS as the IAF. We missed there was and inset on the approach plate which included another IAF CLSIK and the intermediate fix GRUNG. The depiction on the chart is not intuitive and easy to miss. Having been cleared the approach; we flew direct to SILLS. The approach advised we had skipped CLSIK and GRUNG; ATC did not raise a fuss and we landed without further incident. Sounded like we were not the first to miss this.Error in understanding between ATC and the flight crew. Also the Jeppesen plate is not intuitive; lists multiple IAF's for the same approach. I think the approach transitions should be included to the east of the approach and not as an inset. The line indicating other fixes to the east is obscured by writing on the chart.Needless to say this error will result in being more vigilant in the future when transitioning from the arrival to the approach as well as all other phases of flight.




Synopsis: An E170 First Officer reported that there was an inset on the approach plate which included another IAF (initial approach fix) that was missed.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to crossing ZZZZZ while in icing conditions [we] received WG A/ICE FAIL message and then ICE COND - A/I INOP message on EICAS. After complying with AOM1 checklist reset approach speed for Vref 45+30 KIAS and insured calculated landing distance exceeded available landing distance. Upon landing used max reverse. Emergency not declared due to lack of time prior to touching down.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain approaching final approach fix reported receiving EICAS messages WG A/ICE FAIL message and then ICE COND - A/I INOP. The appropriate adjustment to V speeds was made and aircraft landed safely.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working an increasingly busier session on RADAR at the Sector 68. The E170 was northwest and level at FL340; requesting FL320 for moderate chop. I descended the E170; switched communications to Sector 67; and lost the Data Block for an A320 in a mess of Data Blocks; who was eastbound level at FL330. When I realized separation was going to be lost; I attempted to turn the A320 away from the E170; but the instructions were not received until the third transmission; for some apparent reason. As the A320 was making the turn I instructed; Sector 67 was turning the E170 away from the A320 at the same time; and separation was regained; but the A320 responded to a RA which instructed them to climb; and separation was lost on the next RADAR hit. Work on my scan; but why would TCAS climb an aircraft into one at a higher altitude?




Synopsis: ZOB Controller described a loss of separation event when failing to note conflicting traffic prior to issuing a descent. The reporter stated the TCAS RA resolution provided compounded the conflict.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Other at arrival
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the X FA and I disarmed my door; but forgot at first to move my door flag to the disarmed position; I gave the Gate agent a thumbs up; and when she didn't move; I realized my mistake; moved the flag to the correct position; gave a thumbs up and then we opened the L1 door. Triple check myself before giving a thumbs up! I was concerned about getting my face mask on for door opening and deplaning and I allowed this to interfere with my usual focus. In the future I will put this on after the door is opened since I can't wear the mask and  use the intercom to call to the back.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported initially forgetting to move the door flag to the disarmed position due distraction from putting a mask on to avoid COVID-19 exposure.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYEH.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF MYEH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Basically there are no visible runway markings on this runway. I have never been here before and I will never go back again. At 500 feet you are looking at what looks like a road in the middle of nowhere and have to decide if you can land. We have airline service to this place so I assume it must be ok. Paint is so faded on runway that you can't make anything out. No numbers; edge marking; centerline marking; or anything else. No part 121 carrier should be flying to this place.No tower; no radar. Ceiling was much lower than we were told. Reported weather was 6500 SCT. Actually weather was 2000 BKN; good visibility. Multiple VFR aircraft flying around. Short; skinny runway; no runway numbers; no runway markings. If it doesn't look like a runway then don't land there.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that in his opinion no air carrier should operate into MYEH because of substandard conditions.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MKE
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We recently had a change in airspace and procedures with C90 climbing departures northbound to 15;000 (it used to be 13;000). I had an overflight that was at 16;000; he asked to descend to 12;000 as soon as he was clear of C90 airspace. There was aircraft departing ORD that were also traffic for him. Once aircraft was clear of C90 and departing traffic; I descended him to 12;000 without thinking about the fact that I was over Milwaukee Approach airspace who owns up to 13;000. I was more concerned with missing the new C90 airspace. All the airspace below us was uniform when it was at 13;000. The change in procedures took my attention away from Milwaukee Approach airspace. Nothing happened from the incident other than I descended into somebody else's airspace with no appreq. I have worked this airspace very little since the change in airspace and procedures.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller descended aircraft into Milwaukee airspace after the traffic cleared the lateral confines of C90 airspace. Reporter cited confusion following a recent airspace change.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on 35 at Philly and being cleared into the ramp from Spot 15 we were taxiing southbound.  As I was preparing to make the turn in to the gate; I asked the First Officer (FO) to 'keep me honest' on the right side of the aircraft.  He said it was clear; but a fuel truck was heading our way.  I continued taxiing forward (still southbound) a little bit then started to angle the plane to the right towards the gate.  The FO then stated that the fuel truck was still coming.  I slowed down some more and asked him how far the truck was.  Being that this was apparently his first trip off of IOE; I was trying to gauge his comfort level and what distance 'coming towards us' could be.  As I came through about 30 degrees of turn the FO stated that the fuel truck wasn't stopping.  At this point I applied the brakes and came to a complete stop.  Within a second or two I had visual on the truck as he drove on by staring into what appeared to be a cell phone.  At no point did he ever look our way; and the FO stated that he was shocked that the guy stayed at the same speed the entire time he was watching him.  I immediately contacted the ramp and described the situation with them; and gave them the number of the fuel truck.  There was still substantial room (150 plus feet) between the nose of the aircraft and the vehicle roadway at the time of the incident.Fuel truck driver not paying attention.  The potential for an incident was increased ever so slightly by my choice to turn the plane in towards the ramp assuming the truck would see us and stop.  Fortunately the FO was paying attention to where I couldn't see and kept us well out of danger.




Synopsis: A CRJ Captain reports a fuel truck driver not yielding as they were turning into the ramp. The aircraft is stopped and as the truck passes by the driver appears to be fully engrossed in his cell phone.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A new procedure has been placed at HCF that we need to call a supervisor to watch the R7 Controller start a track on an IAFDOF [Incorrect Altitude For Direction Of Flight] aircraft inbound. According to the CEDAR; we are required to call the supervisor on initial contact with the IAFDOF aircraft. I tried calling out to a supervisor upon initial contact of Aircraft X; who was coming inbound at AUNTI at an inappropriate altitude of FL390; but there was no supervisor at the desk. An OM [Operations Manager] was at the desk; but he ignored my attempts to contact him. I tried calling on the 'ZHN SUP' line; but the OM did not answer; and neither did the supervisor. I stated 'Article 65' on the line; because I was unable to perform a required task. I still kept attempting to find a supervisor. I even called sector R2/D2; and she said she saw a supervisor; behind the watch desk. I do not know why [the supervisor] did not respond to my verbal calls or my landline call; but I was unable to perform the IAFDOF procedure that we are required to do; in a timely manner. This new procedure is a distraction to the R7 and the D7 controllers because we need to locate a supervisor when supervisors are not always at the desk; or even on the floor. We put our traffic and the safety of the flying public at risk with this new procedure. Please; fix this.We need a coordinator at R7; especially if our management is putting additional unsafe procedures for us to do at a very busy sector. I am concerned there will be a catastrophic incident involving a mid-air; if we need to divert our attention from the radar; in order to locate a supervisor. Quite honestly; if this is how management is treating this new procedure; I will be unable to comply with it; especially if I am working the sector combined. I will not be able to sacrifice safety for a procedure that is totally unsafe and inappropriate.And staff the facility; in order to have a coordinator position. Not; a supervisor; but a controller; who understands the traffic. Most supervisors at the HCF are not even current on sector R7.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reports of a new procedure that he needs to coordinate with a FLM. The controller cannot find a FLM and then States Article 65. The controller does not know why the FLMs are not being able to be found when this is part of the procedure.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was in flare for a landing for Runway 14. The nose of the plane dropped while I was in ground effect and uptown landing. The plane took off again. It bounced twice before coming to a full stop. Upon taxing to the parking at the FBO; I exited the plane and saw that I apparently had a prop strike; and the front gear had bend and push the oil drain in and began leaking oil from the plane.




Synopsis: A SR-22 pilot reported the aircraft's nose dropped in the flair after which the aircraft lifted off and bounded twice. During the subsequent ramp inspection a bent propeller and oil leak were discovered.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Line; Fittings; & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were assigned and aircraft for an early morning departure. The plane had arrived a few hours prior. During preflight there was an overwhelmingly strong odor of fuel when I preflighted the right wheel well area. The entire bottom of the plane was wet with condensation. I ran my finger along the bottom skid and it became completely covered in jet fuel. I wrote the airplane up for a fuel leak. Later in the day I talked to the Mechanic who worked on it. He had cleaned the bottom of the airplane and he showed me a hole in the skid where the fuel was coming from. He told me the plan was to sign it off as an acceptable leak so that it could be moved somewhere were it could be fixed. The next morning I ran into the crew assigned to the aircraft. I discovered that they were not moving it to a place where it could be fixed; but were flying several revenue legs with the aircraft. I informed them of the prior day's history.Having another of several recent could not duplicate write ups this morning I also want to report something else that has been bothering me. In December I had a bad fuel leak from the refueling panel area. There is a report on file concerning the incident. I don't believe I was the first to have a leak in this area in this aircraft; and since December I have seen probably ten write ups on this aircraft for a fuel leak in the refueling/ventral tank area. How many fuel leaks in the same aircraft and the same area that obviously haven't been fixed are needed before this is considered a major safety problem?I would recommend reviewing the maintenance records from the last year for this aircraft in relation to this fuel leak.




Synopsis: An HS-128-800 Captain reported a fuel leak in the refueling/ventral tank area which apparently had not been repaired since he recorded the leak in the maintenance log nearly nine months earlier.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FO's leg home; we observed and discussed the re-release on ground in ZZZZ; commented that it was unusual to see it coming from Continent X. Approaching ZZZZZ we never received the re-release and FO (flying) and Relief Pilot (monitoring) with CA on break failed to catch it. We didn't realize the mistake until CA asked me 'OBW [Oh By the Way] how'd that re-release go while I was asleep' while taxiing to gate at ZZZ! 1. FO's First flight in nearly 6 months.2. Unaccustomed to seeing re-release out of Continent X. 3. Crew failed to brief it when we swapped out for last break. 4. Dispatch failed to send it. 5. Should have put a reminder in computer; as a last ditch catch all; or a tried and true sticky note on dash.Avoid complacency; any number of reminders via sticky note; computer; following crew swap brief outline; timer; blaze yellow highlighter!




Synopsis: First Officer reported not realizing that they did not receive a re-release.