elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SUU.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SUU
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying westbound from SAC to ZZZ direct in VMC conditions. The purpose of the flight was instrument currency training and preparing for an IPC (Instrument Proficiency Check) in the near future. Our altitude was 4;500 feet; heading approximately 230; and airspeed approximately 155 kts. We were receiving VFR flight following services and in contact with Travis Approach. The instrument rated PIC pilot was under the hood; I was instructing/acting as safety pilot and sitting in the right seat. We were en-route and in level cruise. While in the process of giving the flying pilot hold instructions for a practice hold (approximately 10 minutes ahead); I saw an object ahead and slightly left. I immediately took controls saying 'my controls' and took evasive maneuvers.  I banked hard right and pitched slightly down. The object very quickly passed by  very close to the left side of the aircraft.  I would estimate that I saw it for less than 1 second. After steering clear; I immediately informed Travis of the incident.  They asked a few follow-up questions (size; speed; my location; and any other data I could provide)     The object looked like a UAV/drone. It was black; squarish; approximately 2-3 ft. across; and appeared to have a red light on the left side. I did not see rotors. It did not look to me like a balloon or mylar balloon; as I have encountered them numerous times over the years. It was either stationary or moving toward/away from us.  No lateral motion noted. After avoiding the object; we continued on our flight without incident; doing a hold; then a VFR practice approach and landing at ZZZ.




Synopsis: General aviation Flight Instructor reported a near miss with a UAS during cruise. Evasive maneuvers were taken and ATC was informed.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HUF.Airport, IN
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
Airspace: Class D HUF
ATC / advisory: Tower HUF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: TRACAB [Terminal Radar Approach Control in Tower Cab] configuration for chronic staffing problem and to achieve training. I was CIC and Local Control; AR to the right and Ground Control training to the left. Traffic was mod-heavy. For all positions. Distraction is always a problem during TRACAB ops.I had 5-6 airplanes on frequency; 4 in the pattern and 1 Opposite Direction Operations (ODO) and another ODO enroute for VFR practice approaches. DBRITE was NOT available due to arrival working a 60 NM range airspace using it.Aircraft X had been doing touch and goes for a while; and turned his base without my sequence; and without asking; and clearly there was an aircraft on final (or perhaps maybe there was an aircraft on final because he knew he had 3 of his company aircraft in the pattern that he had been sequenced with before) that he got closed to approx. 1/2 mile. Pilot turned before he was given clearance from what I can remember; and when I realized it I gave him his sequence and then I could see him spaced himself well.This came up on from a TARP [Traffic Analysis and Review Program] review; 1 month later! I did not report it because the situation I believe was resolved. Pilot action contributed to this event; and watching a falcon replay and hind sight situation is much easier than actually working 5-6 real airplanes! I take responsibility for my part on what happened; I was busy with 5-6 airplanes clumped up together on the DBRITE and TRACAB configuration and DBRITE in a 60 NM range.I feel that after reading the PRC [review] written from this TARP; the threat of 'this shouldn't happen again' is a threat and I feel I HAVE TO PERFORM perfect all the time or else. And to ask that of me and all of us controllers here at HUF without considering the fact that we are always put in an unsafe situation working these type of traffic many times without AN EQUIPMENT and PROPER STAFFING first undermine safety; and the well-being and moral of the facility.Fix the staffing issue.Occasional meeting with tenant flight TRAINING academy. Appreciate your controllers more.




Synopsis: HUF Local Controller reported of staffing issues that were blamed for the operational error of an aircraft turning base before it was supposed to.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SUS.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75; Tower SUS
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Glider
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: First come first served in the ATC environment is not always the safest method to apply; but ATC can't seem to get around this. Had the SUS Tower delayed a C-172 departure one minute; this incident would not have happened. Three airplanes were waiting to depart from SUS. A C-172; a Cessna Caravan; and our G-550. We were to be number three. The Cessna 172 was cleared to takeoff first off Runway 26R; with a straight out departure; with suitable spacing; the Caravan was cleared to takeoff next from Runway 26R with a left turnout. Even though there is a noise abatement restriction that delays the left turnout; the Caravan was asked to expedite his turn so that we could be released; as stated by the Tower. As soon as he turned away; we were cleared for takeoff. Now the interesting part. Our clearance off Runway 26L was runway heading and maintain 2;500 FT. We took off and complied with the clearance. We set the autothrottles to maintain 200 KTS and engaged the autopilot to fly the runway heading. As we climbed; we got a TA on the Cessna 172; who was drifting in front of us. I turned a little left to avoid it. The TA went away as we passed the 172. He was also apparently supposed to level at 2;000 FT but did not; and we got another TA. This quickly went away as we gained distance from the Cessna 172. We were then handed off to [T75] (St. Louis) Departure. This Controller told us to maintain 2;500 FT; and to turn right to a 360 degree heading. He also told us to watch for 3;000 foot traffic inbound to STL. Well; the right turn put us in conflict with the Cessna 172 again; who apparently had started a climb; and resulted in yet another TA with it. As this was happening we then got a TA on the 3;000 foot traffic. Then a monitor vertical speed RA on the C-172. I turned away from the Cessna 172; stayed under the 3;000 foot traffic; a twin engine of some kind and cleared the traffic. Shortly there after we were cleared higher and on our way.




Synopsis: Corporate jet departing SUS experienced a TCAS TA/RA with a preceding C172 departure and then with a STL inbound; the reporter listing ATC's 'first come first serve' procedure as problematic.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rear cargo door light on climbout. Returned to field. Check of the door verified door was latched and locked. Tapping on the lock cylinder from the outside caused the light to extinguish. Door was then unlocked and unlatched and visually checked on the inside. Nothing appeared to be out of the ordinary. The door was latched and locked and the light remained extinguished.




Synopsis: Citation flight crew reported a cargo door warning light resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at 15;000 FT the Cabin Press warning light illuminated. We decided to declare the emergency and executed an emergency descent; final descent was to 8;000 FT then the light extinguished. Then we were assigned 6;000 FT; cabin pressure was now below around 7;000 FT; we did the checklist and advised ATC of our intentions to proceed to [nearby airport].  At the same time we got a hold of Dispatch and told them we declared an emergency with ATC and that we were diverting; then in coordination with Dispatch we determined that the best course of action was to return to [departure airport]. We were assigned 4;000 FT since we needed to burn fuel to not land the airplane above the landing weight limitation.In the cabin the passengers and Flight Attendant were okay and none of them experienced any difficulty; they were also informed of the diversion; we burned the fuel and landed normally and safely.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported loss of cabin pressure at 15;000 FT; the crew declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: There are two very bright billboards just prior to the Approach Light System for RWY 24R at LAX. They are far brighter than the approach lights themselves; and are both a distraction and a hazard to landing aircraft. The billboards span La Cienega Blvd; and are between Hillcrest and Arbor Vitae streets.Turn the brightness down considerably or remove them. The FAA should have never allowed these hazards so close to a runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain stated two very bright billboards prior to the Approach Light System inbound to LAX are a distraction and a hazard to landing aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [This flight] was brought back to the gate for a bothersome odor that was smelt by the crew. Boarding took place and the demo was done and after that the A flight attendant brought attention to the rest of the crew of a strong order that was bothering her eyes and nose. She asked did anyone else smell it and I [the] B flight attendant said yes I did but didn't smell it in the rear of the plane but smelled it toward the front. [Flight Attendant A] also asked the Flight Attendant C did she smell anything and [she] explained that she was sensing something because she had a headache and it was just starting. [Flight Attendant A] called the Captain and we were told from there we would be reporting back to the gate. The Captain made an announcement to the passengers of what was going on he also called again to ask more details. Once at the gate the Captain asked for everyone to deplane as maintenance would have to come on and access the situation.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attended reported an odd odor in the front of the cabin. Other flight attendents noticed odd physical effects from the odor and the aircraft ultimately returned to the gate.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aborted on Runway 35L at 120 kts due to Windshear warning. Returned to gate for maintenance inspection. Weather was moving close to the north end of the airport. Delaying departures would help prevent the situation from occurring again landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported high speed rejected takeoff.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon starting our brief prior to our descent into ZZZ; my First Officer (FO) read out the latest ATIS; which was OVC Clouds at 2500 feet and a temperature of 0 degrees Celsius. Once he was done briefing the weather; I asked him to get ice speeds just in case we would run into icing conditions. We never did and the field was VFR upon arrival. As we were on final approach; I noticed that our Vapp speed was substantially above green dot and that something didn't quite feel right about our approach. Despite this feeling; I looked at our configuration and there was no indication that something was wrong. I continued the approach. Our Vapp speed at this time was around 142. At about 250 AGL; I immediately noticed a reduction in airspeed and within half a second to a second it went below green dot. This was followed by a red windshear caution and I set thrust to max power and went around. I executed the windshear avoidance maneuver as per the company manual. Upon setting ourselves up to try the approach again; we came back around and landed at 16L with light windshear as we crossed the threshold. As we were taxiing to our gate; my FO mentioned that our original landing was setup with ice speeds. I asked him why he had configured us for ice speeds when we never got the 'Stall Protect Ice Speed' EICAS message and he responded with; 'Because you told me to get ice speeds.' He had misunderstood me trying to be proactive when I had requested this 'just in case' and thought I wanted him to set us up with Ice speeds regardless of the situation. This was not my intent whatsoever as I assumed he was aware to not set up the box with ice speeds unless the 'Stall Protect Ice Speed' EICAS message popped up. Unfortunately; I didn't catch this until after we landed.I should have communicated better with my FO; in order to make sure that he wouldn't misunderstand me. I should have questioned the high Vref and Vapp speeds in relation to our weight once we got on final. I shouldn't have assumed that my FO knew not to setup the box with ice speeds despite the Stall Protect Ice Speeds not having shown up on the EICAS.not having shown up on the EICAS.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported that after a windshear encounter and go-around; it was discovered that the First Officer had calculated 'ice speeds' rather than normal speeds due to a miscommunication.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is a fatigue report. I had landed [early morning] after flying the all night from Hawaii. As usual; we must be phone available during our rest period. I attempted to sleep once I arrived at residence that morning. My phone rang three times including a call from the crew desk who assigned me a trip for a departure the next morning. I accepted the assignment but was extremely fatigued having been up for over 24 hours at that point. I slept for 5 hours that night and when the alarm went off early for me to now get ready and drive to the airport; I was almost incoherent. I called Crew Scheduling and advised I was unfit to fly. I would have had less than 7 hours of sleep over two segments in the previous 48 hours. This airline continues to assign these unsafe situations including early short calls after all nighters and it must stop. We cannot do this sort of thing in the name of health and safety. It is egregious to expect a pilot to fly three different shifts in a three day period and perform to expected safety standards for the amount of responsibility we assume with this job.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports a fatigue call after being unable to get proper rest for a flight departing 24 hours after arriving on a Red Eye flight.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician; Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was brought to my attention that our supervisor instructed a mechanic to sign the airworthiness release on [an] aircraft while it was still on jacks having its nose landing gear bushing repaired by the mechanic. He replied that he would not sign it because the aircraft was not finished. Not satisfied with this answer he then proceeded to ask another mechanic to sign the AR (airworthiness release) not even knowing that he was not even qualified to accomplish said task. This is a violation of the GMM (General Maintenance Manual); deviation from company policies and procedures; non-compliance with regulations. The aircraft was repaired and released after the work was completed. Supervisor not knowing GMM and I am in charge do as I say mentality; lack of experience in a hurry to get paperwork done who knows; also has stated too me that the GMM is just a guide.This is a very dangerous situation since most of the people that work under him are new and might be afraid to question his authority. Very proud that they refused his request; this time. But next?




Synopsis: While aircraft was on jacks and maintenance still not completed; the Supervisor asked a Mechanic to sign the air worthiness release in order to expedite the paperwork. The Mechanic refused because it was not in compliance with procedures.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Wing Trailing Edge
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Embraer jet during flight; visually noticed that the right wing's skin on the trailing edge; where it meets the outboard flaps (approximately inline with the right wing; overwing fuel cap); the skin was separating in flight. It was back to normal after landing and it is undetectable during a walk around. I informed those in charge of the flight but I did not follow up. Aircraft should be inspected for possible systemic; manufacturing; or design issue.




Synopsis: Captain on an Embraer jet reported the right wing trailing edge; upper skin surface was separating in flight. But the same area was back to normal after landing and undetectable during a walk around.