elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a visual approach into the uncontrolled airport; I as pilot flying was distracted and descended lower than intended. I was alerted to this by the sounding of the EGPWS warning 'Too Low; Gear;' at which time I observed we were around 600 FT MSL and not close enough to the runway for that altitude. Both pilots happened to be looking outside at the time and did not notice the error until the EGPWS warning was heard. I immediately initiated a climb to around 1;000 FT and; turning final; intercepted the visual glidepath and flew the aircraft to a normal landing. I believe the reason for the distraction was the act of pointing out something on the ground to the First Officer; which were both a bad idea and a violation of sterile cockpit. The situation could easily have been avoided by following SOP's.




Synopsis: DASH 8-100 Captain reports descending too low during a visual approach and receiving a 'Too Low; Gear' EGPWS warning and climbing up to 1;000 FT from about 600 FT.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working 7R. My D-side informed me that Aircraft X needed a clearance off of ITR (NW-bound to RPX) climbing to 100. The data block was handing off to me in coast track; just NW of ITR. After getting an altitude report (climbing through 095 to 100); I cleared Aircraft X without getting a position report; first. It was complex; busy; during the east departure push. I never got Aircraft X in radar; and then my session ended. When I returned from break; I was informed that Aircraft X was actually in 15's airspace when I cleared him; and actually made it to sector 21 before ATC figured out who he was and where he was.I need to get a position report before clearing him. We also all need to do our due diligence in not letting a co-worker 'lead us down the path'; get the needed information before issuing a clearance.




Synopsis: A ZDV Controller reports of issuing a clearance to an aircraft in another controller's airspace. The Controller did not know position of aircraft before issuing the clearance.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DSM.Tower, IA
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Tower DSM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather; Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was working radar approach in the Tower. We did not have the staffing to open the TRACON. I had made comments the night prior when I saw the schedule that Sundays typically get busy. When the workload increases radar becomes more difficult to work in the Tower; because of the small screen and lack of help with coordination. This was the case. The weather was getting worse and more airplanes were calling; more strips printing. Just as last time I was put in to a situation where I had to work multiple aircraft on satellite airports; departing; arriving Des Moines. This was unsafe because when we have no help with coordination for releases off of satellites; spacing; point outs; and so on; the workload increases tremendously. This is what happened yesterday. The traffic was far too busy to work in the Tower. I requested higher for an aircraft; I then climbed the AC to 23000 feet. I forgot about him when he dropped off of my scope; Center called to remind me to ship him. This was in part due to the fact; I was helping an aircraft out with icing; getting the PIREP from him and getting him to a satellite airport. It was also due to other duties that were required.  This can all be a lot safer for everyone. We can provide service to all aircraft without delay; if we have staffing to open the TRACON. With the TRACON open there is always somebody there to help out with situations like this. In my opinion ACC (radar in the tower) should be reserved for times with little traffic; or for mid-shifts. This may have been a larger issue. The TRACON needs to be open!




Synopsis: Radar Approach Controller working in the Tower reported difficulties during his shift due to high workloads; the TRACON being closed; distractions in the Tower; and an inadequate screen size for his radar. The Controller believes that scheduling more controllers to open the TRACON would remedy the situation.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GKT.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E TYS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TYS
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was a personal IFR flight with landing airport conditions approximately 2;000 FT overcast; with good visibility. Winds favored Runway 10. Conditions deteriorated slightly too about 1;900 FT overcast as I approached the area and upon being turned over to ATC Approach by the Center Controller. Because the airport was MVFR; I elected to fly the VOR approach; and was vectored onto the approach course just outside of [the final approach fix]. I noted that the aircraft had drifted south of course; likely because of a stronger southerly wind than anticipated. As I corrected; ATC advised that I was south of course; but noted that I was correcting. However; I noted disagreement among instruments as to precise course: The VOR indicator indicated that I was on course; the GPS moving map showed me slightly south of course; and the handheld iPad with geo-referenced approach flight through Foreflight also showed me slightly south of course. As indicated above; I corrected my course and at approximately that point entered VFR conditions. At that point; I proceeded visually and canceled my IFR flight plan. The problem in question was not severe; because I was very familiar with the area; the approach; and my specific location. However; the disagreement among instruments was confusing; particularly since it was my understanding that the VOR indicator was primary. However; I later learned upon testing the indicator that it; rather than the geo-referenced approach plate and GPS moving map; was erroneous. Moving maps offer wonderful situational awareness; but confusion results when various indicators disagree as to position. Frequent cross-checking in good VFR conditions is necessary in order to verify that all are accurate and to correct any inaccuracies or disagreements that might exist.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Beech 36 observed a disagreement in his instruments during an IFR approach. He later confirmed that the VOR indicator was incorrect; even though it is recognized as the primary instrument.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ; Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were waiting for our close out so the FO (First Officer) made about 4 calls to Load Control to see what the hold up was but we got no response.  I called Dispatch and asked them to call Load Control. Because we were departing off XXR I decided to start the taxi and get the numbers on the taxi out so we weren't blocking [Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z] from taxing out.  Load Control called and said we had dry ice in the forward compartment and birds in the aft compartment and they needed a Dangerous Goods Form. I sent the acknowledgment and we received the close out. By the time we had uploaded the numbers and run the taxi checks we were at Runway XXR and cleared for takeoff. The FO (First Officer) noticed that the dry ice was not on the closeout. I told him I had received a verbal from Load. I should have followed up when he queried it.I think I was too concerned with holding up ramp traffic.  I should have not taxied until all the paperwork had come through and we could see that it wasn't complete. I guess I was thinking that because I had received a verbal description of our hazmat which I recorded and acknowledged I was good.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported a communications breakdown between Captain and First officer regarding Hazmat documentation during busy closeout & pushback.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final approach the nose gear would not come down to locked position. We executed a go around; ran the QRH procedure and recycled the gear; but still no down and locked indication. Continued through QRH to manual extension of gear; nose gear came down and stayed locked. Landing touchdown was at approximately 100 fpm rate of descent; and we received a steering INOP Caution Message on roll out. We taxied clear of the runway using differential braking and thrust and came to a stop. We then called Operations and informed them we needed to be towed to the gate. Once parked; we filled out appropriate paperwork and informed Maintenance.




Synopsis: When the nose gear failed to extend and lock on final approach the flight crew of a CRJ went around; completed a successful manual gear extension and landed safely.  The flight was towed to the gate due to loss of nosewheel steering.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight had pushed; taken off; and was en-route when another Dispatcher had noticed the aircraft was out of service in flight. They informed the Dispatcher of the current leg. Dispatcher checked to see when it had been removed from service. [Maintenance Control] had removed the aircraft from service 2 minutes after the aircraft had pushed. Dispatcher had not received a call from [Maintenance Control] stating the aircraft had been removed from service; and because of this; a message had not been sent from dispatch to the crew to inform them of such. Final numbers had already been received as the [Maintenance Control] out of service block was placed after push back. Dispatch coordinated and had out of service block removed.[Maintenance Control] needs to remove aircraft from service when call is received and anytime the plane is being worked on. If an aircraft is going out of service for a follow-up; or other scheduled maintenance; it should be removed from service at least 30 minutes prior to next leg; or ideally as soon as it blocks in; to prevent crews from getting preliminary or final numbers for their flight. [Maintenance Control] also needs to communicate that aircraft are removed and returned to service whenever they make these changes.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported a flight was released and pushed from gate before Maintenance marked it out of service.
Date: 201908
Location: MYR.Airport, SC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Manuals; Logbook Entry; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I do the walk-around on nose number XXXX flight to MYR. I found several write-ups and in particular log XXXXXXX. Maintenance cleared as REPLACED FASTENER. Also; of concern is log XXXXXXY. Maintenance cleared as SECURED FASTENER. We then received a [maintenance release] and we flew to MYR. After landing my FO (First Officer) performs the walk around and brings to me pictures of what he found. The two above write-ups still exist. The log XXXXXXY had aluminum tape sticking down. This fastener is on a corner and according to [Maintenance Control] must be fixed. Log XXXXXXX still had a missing fastener.I knew something did not feel right in ZZZ because of how quickly maintenance signed it off. This is blatant disregard for FAA regulations governing maintenance and maintenance documentation. The FAA needs to aggressively pursue this issue and hold individual(s) accountable.I have six years as an aircraft mechanic and fourteen years flying [Company]'s Airbus aircraft and without a doubt; ZZZ Maintenance is the most unsafe maintenance organization I have ever witnessed.We have a full plane and I am certain our customers will question their judgment in purchasing a ticket on our airline again.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported that maintenance personnel signed off the log pages without performing the required maintenance.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other During Servicing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Other Person
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Company fuel truck cut off the belt loader that was approaching AFT cargo pit. It caused the belt loader driver to slam on the brakes in order to avoid hitting the truck.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported the careless operation by a fuel truck driver resulting in a belt load driver having to take evasive action.
Date: 202002
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1 on [date]; there was freight planned for the flight that was supposed to go on a truck for ZZZ1 and then continue on a flight to ZZZZ. Apparently; there wasn't enough room on the truck so the shipment was moved to go on the aircraft as Aircraft X.  The ramp lead noticed that there was Dangerous Goods and he planned that to go into pit 4 with 15 bags surrounding it. The rest of the freight was showing as Lithium batteries in excepted quantities and those boxes we loaded in pit 6. These boxes were not labeled as DG (Dangerous Goods). These were large heavy boxes; one of which was a television. As the lead was closing out the flight; he noticed that ALL of the freight was designated as Hazmat on the scanner and he was unable to close the flight due to ZERO bags were loaded into pit 6 with these boxes of freight. By the time he realized this; the flight had been pushed back and was taxiing out for departure. At this point; I (ZZZ ramp supervisor) became aware of this issue and had Ops call the Tower to have Aircraft X come back to the gate. Aircraft X came back to the gate and the ramp crew offloaded all of the freight. The boxes that the lead loaded in pit 6 were not labeled as DG but the boxes in pit 4 were. We ended up taking all of the freight off the aircraft and returned it to the freight house. This was over an abundance of caution and so we could dispatch the aircraft. When I spoke to the lead at the freight house and explained the situation; the lead was somewhat confused as to why we had to take the freight off since it wasn't Hazmat. I had to explain to him that ALL the freight on the flight was showing as Hazmat in the system. Due to the size of the boxes there was no way to surround the boxes with 15 bags. Because this freight was going onto a wide body aircraft in ZZZ1; 15 pieces were not required if the freight was going to be loaded into a ULD. If indeed; the ramp crew needed to secure these boxes of Lithium Batteries in Excepted Quantities there was no way that the boxes could be secured with 15 bags due to space limitations on a narrow body aircraft. The freight could have been secured with tie-down straps.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Supervisor reported aircraft ground gate return due to Hazmat loading configuration errors. In the interest of safety all Hazmat was offloaded. Flight completed uneventfully.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: There are lights on the terminal building near Gates X that are intended to illuminate the ramp area. The lights are aimed in a manner that causes severe glare and a loss of night vision for any crew taxiing on the ramp; especially for crews attempting to park at those gates. We had such difficulty seeing that we considered shutting down and requesting a tow to the gate. I'm still not completely certain we should not have done so.The airport/company should change the location/aiming point of those lights ASAP.

Callback: The reporter states his airline's safety committee is looking into the problem.



Synopsis: A B737NG Captain reported ramp illumination lights in LGA are blinding flight crews while parking and suggests they be relocated or reaimed so as not to do so.