elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
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: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Software and Automation; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During my shift the night of Date; I was very busy due to the weather situation across [area] with many aerodromes in the IFR-LIFR range. I was selecting alternates that were +1:00 away from airports in southern [area]. Originally I just had ZZZ1 on the release; but selected a second alternate of ZZZ2. The original release was sent with two alternates ZZZ2 and ZZZ1. ZZZ2 was illegal due to the new policy of alternate selection of weather at less 600-2 due to the 5G NOTAMS. I saw the weather had been forecast just below weather alternate minimums. I ACARS the crew and had them remove ZZZ2 from the release since weather was forecast below alternate mins. The biggest thing is the increase in alternate minimums; which recently changed. High workload for the west central region during the shift due to IFR-LIFR conditions across the worked region. Flight was released late due to meteorology writing an exception TAF for ZZZ3 around XA00Z when all the Routine TAFs go out. Meteorology had been busy issuing the XAZ company TAFs. First; better diligence on my part on knowing the new policy in place now for adding an alternate. I did add ZZZ2 has a second alternate with ZZZ1 as the primary. Second; newer flight planning system that highlights closures; alternates or greys out them out as an options (an AI intelligence) that is able to tell us if an alternate is legal to use or not with forecast weather.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported the alternate airport they added to the flight release was not valid because it did not meet the new weather requirements that the airline established due to 5G NOTAMs.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pulling aircraft from the hanger early in the morning darkness I neglected to remove the tow bar. Departed with tow bar still attached to nose gear. Attempted to retract gear; but nose gear would not lock up. Realized tow bar was still attached. When selecting gear down the nose gear would not lock down. Flew to airport ZZZ where maintenance could be performed. Set up for a retracted nose gear landing. During the flare while slowing the aircraft the resistance to the gear lessened and the nose gear locked into position. The tow bar was at a forward angle of approximately 45 degrees upon touchdown. When the tip of the tow bar hit the pavement it slid forward. The aircraft coasted to a stop. After inspecting the aircraft it was towed to the maintenance shop. The gear was swung several times and an ultrasound performed on the nose gear components. No damage was found and the aircraft was returned to service. I have now changed the chain of events when pulling the aircraft from the hanger. After disconnecting the tow bar from the tug; the tow bar in stowed in the hangar before the tug is moved from the front of the aircraft. The tug can be seen from the cockpit where the tow bar cannot.




Synopsis: A Pilatus PC12 pilot reported taking off with the tow bar still attached to the nose gear and upon gear retraction the nose gear would not lock up. The pilot reported he set up for a retracted nose gear landing; during the flare the nose gear locked down and the tow bar come off with runway contact. Gear was swung and an ultrasound inspection performed; no damage was found. Aircraft returned to service.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through FL330 enroute to ZZZ; [we] got [an] ECAM warning for green system low quantity. We held at ZZZZZ at FL220 for one turn to complete ECAM and QRH then proceeded to Runway XXC at ZZZ. We requested priority handling since we had to stop on the runway and be towed in. Checklist procedures; approach; [and] landing were all uneventful. The cause was a failure of [the] green hydraulic system.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a loss of the green hydraulic system inflight resulting in an expedited descent and landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was inbound to ZZZ airport; about 5 miles northeast. I reported my position on the CTAF and that I was planning a left downwind entry for the active runway. There was a fair number of trainer aircraft in the vicinity of the airport as well as numerous aircraft in the vicinity of the VOR executing practice instrument approaches. A light twin announced that he was upwind off of Runway X; then crosswind. Since I knew that his departure could result in a possible conflict; I maintained extra caution and vigilance. Even so; I did not see the northbound aircraft until it was above the horizon; about 1/8 mile away.  There wasn't enough time for evasive action; the aircraft passed behind me.This kind of incident may be a precursor to possible in-flight collisions at this airport because of very heavy training activity with many non-standard operations. Exacerbating the situation was the fact that numerous training aircraft over the VOR (7 miles to the southwest) were communicating with each other with information on altitudes; distances away from the fix; type of approaches they were doing; all on the CTAF for ZZZ. All of this continuous radio chatter precluded my opportunity to announce my position as I entered downwind; and may have been a factor as to why the other aircraft failed to see my aircraft.




Synopsis: Ercoupe pilot reported excessive traffic and radio congestion at a non-towered field that resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As a precautionary measure I am filing this report.  I do not believe we did anything wrong or caused a violation.  I was the First Officer on Flight from DEN to ZZZ.  We pushed off Gate XXX and were told to taxi to; 'X East; call Ground 121.85.'  Ground issued taxi instructions to; 'Taxi Lima to 17L.'  So we complied.  While we were still on Taxiway Lima; I heard Ground tell the other carrier in front of us to; 'Taxi on ED; monitor Tower 132.35.'  Almost immediately after that; while still on Taxiway Lima; we were told; 'Taxi ED; follow the traffic ahead; and monitor Tower 132.35.' (Identical instructions as the traffic ahead).  I also commented to the Captain at this point; 'We were going to Runway 8 now;' because that was the frequency for Runway 8 not 17L. We continued the taxi onto ED and toward Runway 17L. As we crossed the approach end of 17R; a landing aircraft passed immediately overhead.  And; the Captain and I both commented on it. (This is a known 'Hot Spot' but we had not been issued hold short instructions.)  As I was listening to the Tower frequency; I realized this was the frequency for Runway 8 Tower not Runway 17L Tower.  At that same moment; I heard the traffic in front of us ask for 'The correct frequency for 17L.'  He was told the frequency was 133.3.  I also switched to that frequency because we were on ED in line for 17L. As we were climbing out; ATC gave us a phone number to call for a 'possible violation.'


Second narrative: We believed our taxi instructions were to follow a preceding aircraft to 17L.  We were given a frequency for Tower; which was the wrong frequency for 17L.  We noticed the wrong frequency as we approached 17L and changed to correct frequency.  We were cleared for takeoff and; during climb given; a number to call for possible deviation.


Synopsis: Pilot reports of a runway incursion that was caused by possible miscommunication and a frequency that was not issued.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On our flight today ZZZ ATC leveled us off at 13;000 feet during our climb out for traffic. ATC advised the traffic was Aircraft Y at 13;500 feet. As we got close to the target the TCAS alerted us of a TA immediately followed by an RA. Watching the TCAS it got down to 100 feet of separation.The Captain immediately followed the evasive action from the alert. During the evasive maneuver I informed ATC that we received an RA due to the Aircraft Y and we are following the evasive maneuver.ATC seemed very lost and on what an RA was; after 3 attempts to tell her we received an RA; the Captain told her we received a 'Resolution Advisory which supersedes your instructions'. ATC then apologies and asks Aircraft Y their altitude; they report back at 13;400 feet.After receiving the TA I was watching the TCAS and the separation went from +3 to +2 to +1. I suspect Aircraft Y had descended from their assigned altitude of 13;500 feet.Fortunately; everyone was fine and it will make a good learning experience.


Second narrative: Leaving ZZZ enroute to ZZZ1 we were told to climb and maintain 13;000 feet on a heading. ATC advised us of traffic; Aircraft Y at 13;500 feet maneuvering. We never had the traffic in sight before we received a TA followed by a RA and complied immediately. During the maneuver; PNF (Pilot Not Flying) alerted ATC and was told that we were not to climb and we were restricted to 13;000 feet. After three attempts to tell ATC we were responding to an RA and that takes priority over their instructions; we finally were able to clear the confusion with the controller. ATC then apologizes and asks Aircraft Y what altitude they were at and he replied '13;400'.After the flight; I can only assume Aircraft Y had [descended] through his altitude of 13;500 feet and climbed back up. Fortunately; no one was hurt and the flight completed safely.


Synopsis: Falcon 2000 flight crew reported an NMAC event during departure climb. Pilot flying followed the TCAS RA and reported the incident to ATC.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While unloading the aircraft; we removed the city bags first at the direction of the supervisor; which meant we emptied the front of the airplane. There was about 2900 lbs of bags and mail in the rear of the plane. As the passengers were getting off the plane and we started to down load the bags; I notice the first nose strut was starting to move; we were unable to reach the GPU panel to plug the ground power in. A few minutes later the plane nose gear strut appeared to be a full extension BUT THE tire never came off the ground. We were told that tail stands were not needed on the 737 MAX.... I believe we should revisit that decision; or maybe look for another solution.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported full extension of nose strut of a B737 MAX aircraft during unloading.  A tail strike was not reported.  Reporter questions the lack of tail stand use procedure.
Date: 201203
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after we started on our Oceanic Track; the right generator failed with all associated EICAS messages and system failures. We followed the QRH procedures and right generator came back on line. The right bus isolation switch was still illuminated including right recirculation fan; both utility buses and left Engine Electronic Control (EEC). We also had numerous EICAS messages. We then completed QRH procedures for BUS off; left EEC inoperative and started the APU as a precaution. This was the third time in less than a week the right generator had tripped so this problem had not been taken care of. We then contacted Center; informed them about our situation and that we might turn back but first we were going to contact Dispatch and Maintenance Control for advice. This was done on HF which is a challenge and after a brief conversation we decided to divert to the next available suitable airport. This decision was made because this problem had occurred twice previously; we had degraded conditions in cockpit and cabin and problems communicating on HF. We flew to lands end and entered holding to burn off fuel so we would land at or below maximum landing weight. We landed with no further incidents.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a trans-oceanic B757-200 flight experienced the loss of the right generator shortly after coasting out westbound. Because failure of the generator was a chronic issue and because of degraded cockpit; communication and cabin systems they opted to turn back and divert to an appropriate foriegn airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received a level II Tnk 2 Fwd Tnk Lo Caution upon block out. QRH directed us to pull the associated CB and call Maintenance. We did and were directed to a maintenance troubleshooting area with all 3 engines turning. Maintainer came onboard through the avionics compartment. He troubleshot the pump and said it would have to be MELed. With concurrence from Maintenance Control; MEL 28 Main Tank Pumps -- Tank 2 Forward was prescribed. We received an adjusted flight plan from our dispatcher and took off. The aircraft was still indicating the LVL II Caution. At top of descent; we thought it would be prudent to open the #2 and #3 cross feed valves in association with the QRH. We started our descent at FL360 and somewhere around FL300 we noticed that the #2 engine had rolled back and stabilized at approximately 27%. We conducted an uneventful air start in accordance with the QRH. We then informed ATC that we had an engine problem. We kept the #2 engine at idle for approximately 6 minutes before adding power. We conducted an uneventful landing with all engines operating normally. We informed the emergency crews that we required no further assistance while exiting the runway.


Second narrative: It isn't clear to us why the engine rolled back. We believe engine flamed out due to fuel starvation; which we believe was a malfunction of the fuel system.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported successfully restarting #2 engine following an in-flight rollback possibly related to fuel system MEL item.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream III (G1159A)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were at our cruising altitude of FL450. we were experiencing turbulence then we had dual engine flameouts with total lose of electrical power. We immediately notified Center and requested a descent and vectors to the nearest airport for landing. We executed the emergency procedures as prescribed in the operating handbook (checklist) we were initially able to restore electrical power but it failed again shortly after. Below 13000 we were able to restart the engines but never gained avionics. We proceeded to then land.




Synopsis: Gulfstream III First Officer reported a dual engine flameout at night at cruise altitude with total loss of electrical power; restart was accomplished at 13;000 feet; no avionics and a divert field landing.