elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EMT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E EMT
ATC / advisory: CTAF EMT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the return leg of a cross country helicopter flight; I made the decision to land briefly for a touch and go at El Monte Airport. Coming from the east; I made a left base arrival to runway 19. Winds were from the southwest; visibility was over 10 SM; the sky was clear below 12;000 AGL; and VMC prevailed. I started my takeoff roll down runway 19; intending to make a right crosswind departure northwest bound. I turned right crosswind over the last 1/4 of the runway at approximately 125 feet AGL. 1 or 2 seconds after I made that right turn; approximately 100-300 feet north west of runway 19; I saw a bright blue flashing object descend rapidly from above my aircraft at my 1:00 position; to below my aircraft at my 5:00 position. The object; which appeared to be circular in shape; was about 30 feet away from my aircraft during its rapid descent. Evasive action was taken in the form of a rapid steep left bank to clear my rotor blades from the UAV. As soon as it was clear from my vision I made a steep right turn to attempt to see where the object was descending to; but I lost sight of it and could not locate it again. The flying object; although I could not see it very clearly because of darkness; appeared to have the shape of a quad copter; or multi rotor 'drone'. I would estimate its weight less than 40 pounds; and a diameter of 3-5 feet. I believe the incident took place directly over airport property; which greatly concerns me. The operator probably didn't know there was an airport there; or at least I hope so. I cannot conclude if the objects rapid descent was intentional on the part of the operator; or if it was a result of the downward flow of my rotor wash.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot experiences an NMAC with a UAV during a night departure from EMT; about 200 feet AGL. Evasive action is taken.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed with 40 gallons of fuel. One hour and thirty minutes in flight I was cleared to land on Runway XXL at [my destination]. On downwind engine started missing. I notified Tower of engine missing; would prefer Runway XR. Tower asked if it was an emergency and how much fuel and how many people were onboard. I replied; 'No; it sounds like a magneto; 9 gallons; and three people on board. Tower replied; 'Cleared to land Runway XR.' On short final engine died and I landed and stopped on Runway XR.Intermittent power loss is undetermined at this point.  Mechanic will checkout the engine to determine the cause.




Synopsis: During downwind approach pilot experiences a rough running engine and advises the Tower of the issue and the need to land opposite direction on the active runway; which is approved.  Engine quits on short final and a safe landing ensues.
Date: 201707
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On walk around crew noticed the rubber seals on the top of the rear Nose Landing Gear vertical door installed backwards. The rubber seal has a long side and a short side. Usual install has the long side on the horizontal with a slight overhang past the metal of the door. These seals were installed reverse of what they should have been. [This report is] to address that this is a growing trend with multiple write ups by this crew. Someone; somewhere; is not paying attention to detail (heavy maintenance?) and putting the seals on wrong. Write up was submitted prior to boarding but we left a few mins late as Maintenance had to find paperwork to confirm the write up. Seal change to correct configuration is fairly quick.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported that seals for the nose landing gear doors were installed backwards.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was doing the F route through IAH tower airspace from DWH and to HOU. We were on an East flow and the F routing would take Aircraft X through our finals. Aircraft Y was inbound final runway 8R. I recognized early that there would be a problem. I had questioned myself as to whether or not a helicopter could do visual with an A380 Super. I knew airplanes couldn't. Anyway; as soon as I issued the clearance; Aircraft X accepted the visual separation and my monitor called and said he didn't think I could do that. I called back down after the Aircraft X passed and thanked my monitor. I stopped the helicopter under my final and held him until I had 8 miles with the Super as the Helo is an F and the Super is an A. There was no loss; but this whole session I was out of synch because of the recat having the different separation requirements and the TPA/ATPA being turned on too adding mileage information to the data blocks. Our training was pretty high altitude. We should have probably had some sim time on this as the display is enough with the new display to throw you off. Several people commented on this today. I knew the rule; but with all of this new stuff I guess it just threw me off. Embarrassing! But a good refresher.I would recommend better training than just some slides; Q&A; and a card with Wake Turbulence tables on it. I will say the Wake Turbulence card is saving us though. Everyone should get that at all facilities as they transition and I'm sure they will. By the end of the session the requirements were getting more automatic; but I still don't have them down.




Synopsis: IAH Controller has a helicopter and an A380 Super aircraft. Controller applies visual separation from the helicopter to the Super. Controller finds out this is not allowed and implements another form of separation.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-10 30
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just prior to block out time it was noticed that the ships batteries were venting overboard and several electrical anomalies were present on the flight deck. The batteries were believed to be in 'run away' state and were removed from the aircraft and replaced with serviceable batteries in accordance with the AMM [Aircraft Maintenance Manual]. During entry of the maintenance action the chapter references were transposed in the logbook entry. This occurred due to the normal chaos associated with rapid maintenance actions and a desire to expedite the aircraft maintenance for dispatch. In the future the 'delay meter' mentality will have to take a back seat to accuracy and attention to detail.




Synopsis: During maintenance activity documentation at pushback time of a DC10-30; the Maintenance Manual reference documented in the log entry was transposed.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During briefing and preparation for arrival; we discovered the altitudes on the arrival did not match the FMC. Upon checking the database we found the [future] database to be active. We verified the fixes and altitudes on the arrival and approach and proceeded without incident. At the gate; Maintenance verified that they had done a NAV update the night before. It seems the new database was put in the current use line prematurely by Maintenance during the update. We missed the error during our preflight.


Second narrative: While at cruise at FL370; we were going through the arrival briefing. It was my leg (FO) and I briefed from the CDU while the Captain followed along on the Electric Flight Bag (EFB) charts. The Captain noticed conflicting data between what the two sources of data (EFB/CDU) were presenting. At this point we checked the navigation database and noticed it to be improperly loaded with the next version not scheduled to be loaded until [later]. At this point we verified the correct altitudes were loaded into the arrival per the current approach plates. We landed; and after talking with maintenance; determined that maintenance improperly loaded and made 'active' the incorrect database on the previous night. In addition I; the FO; did not verify the correct NAV database was loaded during my preflight inspection.


Synopsis: The crew noticed an altitude discrepancy between the Electric Flight Bag (EFB) and the FMC on the arrival procedure. It was determined that maintenance had updated the database the night before and had prematurely activated that new revision.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CZYZ.ARTCC, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center CZYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During our descent; we were cleared direct ROKTO and a descent to 11;000 FT. As we passed ROKTO at 13;800 FT ATC called and said there was an altitude restriction at ROKTO between 16;000 FT and 14;000 FT. We were initially filed for the YWT4 arrival to CYYZ; but had not been cleared for the arrival. We assumed our descent clearance was a stand alone clearance to 11;000 FT and not part of the arrival; and since we weren't cleared to 'descend via' we thought we were fine. Toronto Center advised us that Canadian procedures do not use [the 'descend via' phrase]. He further stated that it was no problem as there was no other traffic in the area. We then accomplished a normal descent; approach; and landing to Runway 24L. We had pre-briefed the altitude restrictions and compliance prior to top of descent; but the clearance below the first restriction coupled with not being verbally cleared for the arrival lulled us into this mistake.


Second narrative: After we started [our descent]; we received a clearance to descend to 11;000 FT. There was no 'descend via the arrival' of a descent to 11;000 FT and comply with crossing restrictions; just a standard descent. We asked why we were not cleared to descend via the ROKTO and they said they did not give clearances like that to prevent confusion. This is exactly the opposite of US ATC procedures and creates massive confusion especially when you rarely fly to Canada!


Synopsis: When cleared by Toronto Center to descend to 11;000 MSL on their cleared route the US based flight crew was unaware the clearance required them to meet the crossing restrictions on their filed arrival. As a result they crossed ROKTO 100 feet low.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were an IFR approach. We had been vectored to our IAF when we started losing communication. Both radios were going defective. We could barely hear Center; but they seemed not to hear us at all. It was intermittent. We started inbound and at FAF navigation started to fail. The screen on both GN530W started to come and go. I tried to reset them and was having problems doing so; so I told the pilot we should climb.The idea was that altitude was our best option until we could solve the problem. We did not go to the missed approach point because of having to reset the navigation. We inadvertently climbed to 6;000 feet; due to getting distracted by resetting the system. At 6;000 feet we established contact; although poorly; with Center which cleared us for another GPS approach. We shot the approach and landed.At that time we were notified that we should call ATC. I made the call and was reprimanded for not going to the MAP. The supervisor that I spoke with did not seem to understand that at the time; we could not go to the MAP due to the failure. He said he was not going to report the incident; but next time fly the missed approach as published. I did not argue. I just agreed with him.Upon landing; [FBO] looked at the avionics; and found that a 30 year old open contact relay was chattering. This relay was the master control for the avionics navigation system. We also had a GN500 Garmin panel; but it gets its navigation from the GN530W GPS system. I felt that while we did not know our exact positon; that Center knew where we were so our answer was gain altitude as we knew Center would keep traffic away. Our worst mistake was exceeding 4;000 feet. [FBO] replaced the old relay with a fail safe relay. In retrospect; one pilot should have flown the plane and the other work out the problems with the system instead of both getting involved.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot reported executing a go-around after losing communication and navigation radios on approach. During the go-around; there were track and altitude deviations.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Large fuel truck; possibly # (NUMBER) came around the end of the concourse and into the alley as we were taxiing outbound. The fuel truck stayed outside of the protected white and in the aircraft lane until abeam the nose of our aircraft. In the meantime we we were given taxi clearance out of the alleyway and were rolling. The fuel truck then darted towards our wingtip but did not cross the white line to the protected area. From my vantage point; I did not think there was sufficient clearance and had to slam on the brakes.  Incident reported to Ramp Control (they did not care).Reported to ZZZ Ops.We checked with cabin crew to see if we had any injuries (none).Recommend full size aircraft only enter and exit this alley way on center line if Ground Ops vehicles continue to ignore protected area white line on ramp and continue to drive around our wing while on the east line. I cannot determine clearance of wingtip from flight deck of these vehicles driving around wing.




Synopsis: Captain reported hard braking to avoid collision with a fuel truck being operated outside of the vehicle access roads in the gate area.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: FAA needs to re-think naming of alpha-numeric waypoint fixes. This fix 'KI45O' is easily confused with fix 'KI450. Why is an alphabetical designation affixed to the end of a numerical portion of a fix name? Why not use 'KIO45' instead negating confusion over letter and number designator. A fix name should not go from letters to numbers and back to letters.Dispatch should have paper work that uses the letter 'O' for the letter 'O' and a zero with a diagonal line to represent the number zero. Notice that even in this report it is hard to discriminate between O and 0- this font does not use a line diagonally through zero.We could have asked ATC clearance to recheck waypoint 'KI450' and that might have solved the ambiguous waypoint that was 6666 miles to the southeast.We could have queried ATC prior to reaching the confusing waypoint if they showed KI450 or KI450.The Flight Release and Operational Flight Plan both interchange zeros (0) and the letter (O). Notice that Honeywell uses a zero with a diagonal and a letter O without a diagonal to represent numbers versus letters in the nomenclature of the MCDU. In the cockpit we have one format that has 'O' and '0' in our paperwork; while the MCDU uses the industry standard of a letter 'O' and the zero numeral with a diagonal through it.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain identified confusing fix names KI45O and KI450 and recommends avoiding the use of the letter 'O' along with numbers in naming waypoints.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on a routine Photography Mission; repositioning to another location; we became concerned [City] Power Plant would misinterpret our aircraft as a security issue. Upon landing we contacted [local] 911. They had no report of complaints or concerns. We asked the 911 Dispatcher Officer to forward our contact information to [City] Power Plant Security; if they had any questions or concerns to contact us.




Synopsis: AS350 helicopter pilot reported concerns that a photo mission in the vicinity of a power plant might be misinterpreted as a security issue.