elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight plan block fuel is 70;000 lbs. Loadmaster calls up and says that he 'fueled it to 76;000 lbs'. All of this done without crew or dispatch authorization. This very same issue was brought up in the past; and safety reports filed. Why is the loadmaster adding additional fuel? What did the previous ASAP report on this not resolve this ongoing issue where the loadmaster; on their own accord; just adds fuel? What is this? Where is the accountability and recourse on these renegade actions? Loadmasters are used to 'doing what they want'.




Synopsis: MD-11 Dispatcher reported a Loadmaster overfueled the aircraft by 6000 pounds without crew or Dispatch authorization.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We lost localizer signal while intercepting DTW RWY 22R which caused us to go past the localizer and got close to RWY 22L. Luckily it was VMC and I was able to maneuver the plane back into the centerline visually. There was another carrier aircraft on final parallel to us. We had conflicting traffic in sight at all times.The 145 has had this localizer issue for the duration of my career. Occasionally the needle will swing and even disappear at times. It's incredible that the aircraft was certified with this type of issue.

Callback: The reporter stated that the crew asked ATC if other aircraft were reporting the Localizer anomaly and were told they were the only one. The reporter recalled that certain runways cause more of this type issue than others. DTW 22L; LGA 4 and one of the CHM runways. The compass remained steady during this event. The reporter is not certain what caused this event and even suspects something at the airport may be deflecting the localizer signal.



Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain intercepting the DTW Runway 22R localizer noted the aircraft overshot the runway centerline because the localizer signal did not center coincidental with the runway centerline. The interference may be a runway specific issue.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR20
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

Narrative: Student Pilot was under the hood as we began to fly back in to ZZZ on the Arrival. We where located about 2 miles south of lake at 1;500 ft. receiving the ATIS when PIC noticed over taking traffic that was only around 500 ft. above us. The traffic continued to fly directly behind us and began to descend down from 2;000 ft. The traffic was essentially over the top of us at around 200 ft. when PIC took controls and executed an emergency descent to avoid collision. The closest the two airplanes got was 100 ft. according to the onboard G1000 traffic. PIC then attempted to contact the traffic on the practice area frequency to no avail. PIC then contacted Dispatch to ask that the PIC of Aircraft Y to speak with me at the conclusion of both events to discuss the incident. When I confronted the PIC of Aircraft Y he said that he did see me and was talking to  Approach at the time and did not see any issues with the incident. The PIC stated that it was not hazardous or reckless and did not understand why I had an issue with the incident.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor described a NMAC while on arrival.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Drinkable/Waste Water Syst
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Software and Automation
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Aircraft X was refused due to open write-up of water spraying into cabin from forward galley coffee maker area during takeoff roll combined with other water system write-ups. Aircraft subsequently swapped to Aircraft Y.This is the second time I have encountered this on Airbus aircraft since Date. A report was filed by me for Aircraft X for Flight XXXX on Date for this very same issue. I have never seen this before in XX years of Airbus flying and now twice in 5 months?Water escaping into any aircraft that is fly-by-wire and which has potential to escape the designed containment systems is a serious issue as well.This issue is particularly dangerous because it occurs during takeoff roll with communication inhibited and ECAMS inhibited. The original incident that I saw in Month was also accompanied by a Vent Extract Fault ECAM which created a distracting unsafe environment as well as we were departing for a foreign airport.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported refusing the aircraft due to a potable water leak in the forward galley that was spraying into the aircraft on take off roll.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other initial climb
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff dual flight director never switched over at accel alt and continued to command an abnormally high pitch attitude. All other indications showed the plane still climbing in takeoff mode. Shortly thereafter; both packs turned off and the autothrottles failed. I attempted to reset the packs but that was unsuccessful. I then addressed the flight path management issues as the pressurization failure was secondary. The Pilot Flying correctly was pitching well below the flight director as following it would have taken us into a low speed event. I selected manual speed and bugged 200 kts but this had no effect on the flight director so the Pilot Flying continued to pitch for the speed. I notified ATC of the pressurization issue and requested to maintain 7;000 feet which was approved. Once level and accelerating the Pilot Flying retarded the thrust levers at which time we received a TLA NOT TOGA caution msg which indicated the plane was still in takeoff mode. At this point I decided to cancel all modes on the guidance panel; when I reengaged the lateral and vertical modes the flight director switched and both packs came back on. At this time with no failures present I notified ATC we could continue our climb. Once above 10;000 feet I sent a msg to Maintenance and Dispatch. The remainder of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: ERJ 170-200 LR pilot reported a software malfunction during climb out.
Date: 202005
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While wearing a mask it is often times extremely unsafe to work on ladders or lifts. It is also difficult to work in tight spaces while wearing a mask and safety glasses. The glasses fog up and we cannot see what we are doing (i.e. trying to place a nut on blindly while holding a screw; removing screws from elevator access panels; pinning cannon plugs; etc.) Readjust mask without thinking I could have just touched Skydrol or have other chemicals on my gloves.[When I] put the mask on; breathe; glasses fog up depending on body position.Not enough investigation into the ability to wear masks while doing our daily tasks within OSHA standards for safe work practices. Even if fog resistant safety glasses are available for someone with 20/20 vision; they are not for someone with corrective lens safety glasses.Remove mask. Better to not be blinded and jeopardize safety when completing tasks.Re-evaluate the safety aspect of wearing a mask. Is it Within OSHA standards? Consider readjusting the mask to prevent blinding while working around Skydrol.




Synopsis: Air carrier Mechanic reported that wearing a mask and safety glasses causes the glasses to fog up; resulting in safety concerns when working on ladders; lifts; and in tight places. Mechanic also expressed concern that while working with chemicals; they could inadvertently be transferred to the mask.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In Parking Stand after operating a ferry flight with number 4 Main fuel gauge deferred as per MEL; the number 4 engine flamed out.  The number 4 Main tank was subsequently found to be empty along with the number 3 main tank.




Synopsis: A L382 Captain experiences a number four engine flame out pulling into the parking stand after a ferry flight. The aircraft had been flown with the number four Main tank fuel gauge deferred.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC called and asked; Where are you going? I said; To WLEEE. He said; You were cleared to WEEED. I said; I thought we were cleared to WLEEE for the WLEEE 5. He said; NO!!! You are 40 miles off course. I said; OK; we will go to WEED for the WLEEE 5. Maybe my hearing is not what it used to be. Maybe the radio was not so clear. Maybe ATC did not catch my readback. Maybe we were not as sharp as usual due to the early departure time.But for sure it did not help anyone that the arrival has two very similar sounding waypoints; WEEED and WLEEE. Perhaps I can get a decent headset. Perhaps they can change the WEEED to something else so as not to sound like WLEEE. (They both have three EEEs in them)




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and ATC regarding routing direct to similar sounding waypoints.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EZF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G PCT
ATC / advisory: CTAF EZF
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was making my approach to EZF in the afternoon when on an extended downwind to base leg turn in the left traffic pattern for runway 24; a UAV was observed maneuvering within roughly 75 feet of the pilot side of my aircraft at the same altitude. My position relative to the runway was 2 miles East of the approach end of Runway 24 at EZF and 1;100 FT AGL. The UAV appeared to be Red; White; and Black in color to resemble a model airplane with a wingspan of roughly 3-4 feet. No evasive action was taken on my part as the operator of my aircraft and the flight was concluded safely. There was no warning by means of radio transmission; NOTAM; ADS-B signature; etc. of the operation of this UAV; and I would deem it nearly impossible to spot visually until within roughly 200 FT of the airborne UAV.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reports a NMAC with a model aircraft at 1;100 FT 2 NM east of EZF while turning from downwind to base for Runway 24. No evasive action is taken and a normal landing ensues.
Date: 201702
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Design
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: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I noticed that the smoke goggles looked new and it looked like a nose piece was missing. I tried them on at cruise and there was a huge gap (2 finger widths) between the goggles and my nose and cheekbones. There was still a gap that you could see through with the oxygen mask on. I showed [this to] Maintenance when we landed. He said we must have gotten a good deal on them. The Captain and I planned to talk to the Chief Pilot about it; but all of them were out of the office after we landed.I forgot to write the ASAP report until I came back to flying; and all the goggles on the aircrafts I flew this week had the same mask. Training did not demonstrate these new goggles; as the Captain had just been through training. Please investigate. Unless there's a certain way to marry the mask to the goggles; then I do not think the new goggles will keep smoke and contaminates out. This is a big safety concern in my opinion. They also seemed to be quite narrow in the temples. They might not fit every face. Two other pilots tried these goggles on with similar results pertaining to the large gap. Please have several people try the new goggles on to see if they work. I think they will have to be replaced.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported noticing that his company's new smoke goggles do not fit well enough to seal out smoke and contaminants.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As I advanced the thrust levers I heard a loud bang. I saw that the flight deck door had come open and the Captain was trying to close it. Because of the abnormal situation I thought it was a good idea to abort. I started to pull the thrust levers back but the Captain said to continue the takeoff because he was closing the door so I immediately put them back into the detent. We then got an aural 'TAKEOFF SPIOLERS' warning and the Captain called for an abort.We exited the runway; advised ATC; addressed the passengers then discussed the cause of the warning. We decided that my reduction of the thrust levers caused the spoilers to extend; then returning them to the detent set off the takeoff warning logic. When the Captain told me to continue the takeoff he didn't know that I had already starting reducing them. We also discussed the door opening. The Captain had locked and hit the door prior to push. We ran checklists; checked the door and taxied back for another takeoff.The threat for me was the distraction caused by the Captain sliding back and turning around and not exactly sure who was in control of the trust levers. The error was me deciding that aborting was the right thing to do; pulling the thrust levers back; then returning them to the detent when the Captain said to continue. I have learned: To check the door better; push harder and check it myself. NEVER continue the takeoff after reducing the thrust levers. Don't assume the Captain knows what I'm doing with the airplane without better communication.


Second narrative: I also learned that extra distractions in critical phases of flight lead to poor crew coordination.


Synopsis: The distraction of the cockpit door opening at the start of the takeoff roll contributed to miscommunication between an EMB-145 flight crew regarding whether or not to continue the takeoff. The pilot flying's momentary reduction of thrust triggered the spoilers and made the decision for them. After securing the door and debriefing the event; a subsequent takeoff was made without incident.