elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We landed Runway XXR at ZZZ.  After clearing the runway a taxiing aircraft behind us notified us that we had a flat tire.  The aircraft controls and indications were normal so we continued to the gate.  After arriving we discovered the tire was severely damaged and some parts of under side of wing were damaged.  Maintenance was informed and an AML entry was made in regard to the Number 2 main tire problem.Possibly a faulty tire was installed on the aircraft the night before.  I am not an expert about what causes tires to fail.Suggestions: Maybe a better brand of retread tire should be used on the fleet.




Synopsis: B737-800 pilot reported a main gear tire failed during landing roll causing damage to under side of the wing.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZWG.ARTCC, MB
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center CZWG
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight plan included 4 waypoints identified by 5 digits only (49105 47098 46093 46091). Dispatch identified these as lat/longs. I interpreted this to mean cardinal lat/longs. These abbreviated waypoint IDs were in the flight plan routing strip and in both the left and right margin position columns of the flight plan body. We programmed cardinal lat/Longs in a manner similar to the Oceanic convention for waypoint naming (i.e. 49105 was programmed as N49W105). Shortly after leaving first named fix (YQL) enroute to first numbered fix (49105) Winnipeg Center queried about our routing. We replied that we were proceeding to N49W105 - we were told that our clearance was to N4929.0/W10526.0. The same type of discrepancy was true for the other 3 numbered waypoints. When we checked the lat/longs for the numbered waypoints in the flight plan body we found that they matched ATC expectations and the actual filed routing. We had not seen this waypoint naming convention before and could not find reference in the FOM. It is my job as Captain to keep the airplane on course; thus I take full responsibility for this error and; clearly; this is a lesson learned. Perhaps a note to crews about this would prevent the next pilot from making the same mistake.




Synopsis: The Captain of an A320 mistook five digit lat/long 'cardinal' coordinates in his flat plan route for the more precise eleven digit local they represented and which were shown in the fix lat/long column of his leg by leg flight plan. ATC noted the resulting modest track deviation and the problem was corrected.
Date: 201710
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On this date towing an ERJ145; they had a complete aircraft breakaway. The aircraft jostled in the cradle of the tug and eventually popped out of the cradle. The aircraft had broken free and had no break rider in the cockpit. The aircraft rolled to a stop because the tug was at a standstill and was just starting to pull forward and the tire of the aircraft was jerked free from the cradle and turned sideways. If there was any more speed or the aircraft was on a hill it would have rolled farther than it did. I am reporting this after it was finally brought to my attention almost 2 weeks later. This is the second time that I know of that this has happened that a tug has lost an aircraft during a tow with a towbarless tractor and had no break rider in the cockpit. I also know of at least 20 other times where a plane has broken free of the cradle but remained attached to the tug. Almost every time it causes damage to the aircraft nose gear. In talking to my fellow employees this seems to happen more often than I even knew about. This is a major safety concern because an aircraft that breaks free of the cradle with no one in the cockpit could go anywhere and has no one to stop it. Luckily I have not heard of a breakaway causing major damage but that is just luck. With the expansion of the operations to all our hubs and also our focus cities I believe we need to reevaluate our aircraft towing procedures so that no one is injured or we do not cause a major aircraft accident anytime in the future.




Synopsis: Ramp Supervisor reported an aircraft being towed with a towbarless tug came out of its cradle and went out of control. The aircraft came to a stop before making contact with any objects.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received 'EQUIP' light annunciation with recall 'DOORS' light annunciation during climb after takeoff after clearance to 14;000. The lights mentioned above annunciated at about the time we climbed through 13;000 FT. We leveled off at 14;000 FT. We called ATC to request to level off and not climb further. We ran the QRH. [We] decided that the cabin pressure was relatively high given the low altitude. [We] requested to return. Do not know the reason for the event. The maintenance contractor had problems with the E & E compartment door handle. He repaired or rectified the E & E door handle; and then with Maintenance Control deferred/M.E.L.'d the door light. We did not receive any indication or problems thereafter.




Synopsis: B737 Captain experiences an equipment door warning light climbing out of 13;000 FT and elects to return to the departure airport due to an apparently high cabin altitude.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The previous flight leg the airplane experienced a birdstrike landing. Maintenance accomplished a birdstrike inspection per Maintenance Manual. No Maintenance checkcard was referenced. I asked 2 mechanics to accomplish Maintenance task 5. Afterwards management stated it was an unacceptable delay because General procedures manual allows the maintenance Manual references to be used in lieu of the workcards. True; unbeknownst to me GPM does state this. However; General procedures Manual states the workcard takes 'precedence' when 'conflicts' occur between documents. The 737 Maintenance Manual 5 and task card 5 have profound differences.The question now arises; if a mechanic chooses the Maintenance Manual reference over the workcard; how does he/she know the language of the Maintenance Manual is consistent with the work card. Furthermore; GPM technically allows Maintenance Manual references to be used instead of all common task workcard procedures like towbar disconnect or oil servicing.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported that maintenance took a delay because of the required inspection for a bird strike was not accomplished per work cards.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DAN.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The problem arose when an aircraft departed Danville Regional and headed east to perform practice instrument approaches. I called on the Unicom frequency 8 nm out for an advisory and called my position. After I received the advisory I heard no other position reporting from any aircraft departing Danville. When I was about 5 nm from the airport I saw an aircraft out of the corner of my eye about 11 o'clock and a couple hundred feet below me. I then pitched up to climb but by that time the aircraft was under my wing. I think the lack of communication was an important contributing factor. Another factor was the other aircraft was coming head on towards me which made it hard to see; and it was white against a hazy background.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot arriving DAN experiences a possible NMAC with an aircraft departing; approximately 5 NM east of the airport. Evasive action is taken by the reporter.
Date: 201601
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When we started boarding the flight; the deadheading F/O (First Officer) came up to the cockpit; and offered to work the flight with us; to give his seat to one of the F/A's (Flight Attendant) Mother; who was non-reving on the flight. He offered to work the flight with us; and I was under the impression he had OK'ed it with scheduling. The flight normally only has three crewmembers; so we would get short breaks. With the addition of a fourth qualified crewmember; we were able to get longer breaks. This same crewmember worked our flight back with us. I felt this offering of a qualified F/O to help us was a great idea. I asked both F/O's if they had any input; and neither of them had any objections or made any comments; pro or con.  In my briefing; I ALWAYS ask everyone to speak up if they see something they don't like. I did not get input from anyone on this issue.


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


Synopsis: Aircrew agreed to let a deadheading company qualified in-type pilot join the crew as a working crewmember for the trip.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is the second safety report I have written on this issue.Yesterday I flew from London to a New York area airport. The company had it scheduled for under 8 hours. This relieves the company of adding an extra pilot. The flight was planned at M.81; with a cost index of 62. I have never seen a London flight planned at this speed for an Atlantic crossing. On the prog chart there were areas of turbulence; but nothing was noted as significant on the flight plan. We experienced turbulence for almost 45 minutes on the crossing. The flight duration was 8:10. We landed with almost 4;000 LBS under our expected landing fuel of 15.0. We had no food on the airplane since the co-pilot found a cockroach in his creamed spinach. The food in London is inedible which does not help the fatigue situation.I feel the company is under estimating the flight times to save money on the additional pilot the correct flight time would require. In this case they ran the flight at too high a mach for the weather conditions to save money. We attempted to slow the flight with Shanwick but due to traffic we were forced to keep up our speed.I think the company is sacrificing safety for money savings. This is too long a flight with no rest for both the pilots and flight attendants.




Synopsis: A B767 Captain repeated her previous assertion that her airline is purposely planning westbound transatlantic flights at flight times that allow dispatch without a relief pilot.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was in ZZZ when they discovered a dent on #1 slat. Their evaluation of the dent was accomplished with what appears to be tape? [Engineering Department] was notified and an [engineering order] was issued and item was placed on dip to be repaired in 1 FC. Once in ZZZ1 the dent was re-evaluated prior to permanent repair being performed and pulled fasteners and a crease was noted not allowing us to perform permanent repair per [engineering order]. [Engineering order] part 1 step 2 clearly states ensure dent is smooth and no creases or loose or pulled fasteners. The picture on page 4 of the [engineering order] you can see the 'well defined line' where there is underlying structure. [Engineering order] was not signed at time of release either. Slat is being repaired at ZZZ1 with another repair scheme outside the SRM.[I suggest to] train our maintenance personnel better for damage evaluation and provide them with the tools necessary.




Synopsis: Technician reported that Maintenance at the prior station did not evaluate and document a damaged slat correctly.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the arrival into ZZZ; ATC commanded a descent; which I selected Level Change; frequency change and then cleared for the RNAV XXR Approach. After reprogramming the approach from the left to right and briefing; I failed to select VNAV before busting the 7;000 feet restriction at ZZZZZ. We Immediately disconnected the autopilot and returned to 7;000 feet. The remainder of the approach was uneventful.Prioritizing the sequence of events. Basic piloting. Having flown little in the last 90 days; my proficiency level is not as it normally is. Be aware of this and that I am in the Yellow.  Work harder at staying in the Green.


Second narrative: During the arrival to ZZZ; ATC requested a descent. PF selected Level Change to increase descent rate. A runway change from expected Runway XXL was to Runway XXR and the new approach was programmed. Approach clearance was received. I noted that we were still in Level Change and not in VNAV and that we were low. PF immediately corrected. Visual approach concluded the flight without further incident.PF and PM mitigate LNAV/VNAV distractions of the busy approach; runway change; etc. I; as PM; should have verified the vertical mode.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing an altitude deviation during approach. Lack of flying and proficiency were contributing factors.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B MEM
Second aircraft: Small UAS (At or above 0.55 lbs and less than 55 lbs)
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying a Memphis; Tennessee aerial survey at 4;100 ft. MSL; a standard sized commercial drone (Small UAS) went under the right wing with a clearance of 6-8 ft. below the outer segment of the wing. Pilot Flying (PF) did not see the object due to turbulence during the photo mission that required more attention inside the aircraft. Pilot Monitoring (PM) notified Memphis Approach Control of the encounter immediately and gave a detailed description. The event occurred between the Surface-10;000 ft. and 1;800-10;000 foot shelves of the Memphis Class B airspace. Survey mission was performed in VMC under Flight following with Memphis Approach Control. Corrective action was not taken due to the use of autopilot; a rapid closing speed; and only seeing the object as it passed under the right wing of the aircraft.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported a near miss with a UAS and reported the incident to ATC.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) froze and subsequently restarted when switching from arrival to approach plate; base to final; in challenging IMC conditions. Changed to paper charts; unnecessary distraction. EFB is completely updated and properly charged.Poor performance of the EFB and Jeppview app.The EFB freezing issues need to be addressed. Many pilots I fly with experience un-commanded restarts or frozen screens during non-essential phases of flight; at this point it's become expected and widespread. During an approach it's not just a nuisance; it's a serious distraction. Paper charts need to be maintained in the aircraft until these issues are properly addressed.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported his Electronic Flight Bag froze up multiple times on arrival in 'challenging IMC conditions'.