elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Although numerous fatigue reports have been filed regarding this issue; it remains. The issue is fatiguing schedules; with legs and sits prior to a red eye; and flip flops from late night to early morning. This type of schedule is increasing in the bid for [the month]. While the FAA undoubtedly echoes the company line that it is legal; and therefore; acceptable; I would assert that it is the FAA's ethical duty and legal requirement to enforce the preamble to Part 117; which describes the intent and philosophy of 117; i.e.; not to have tired pilots flying airplanes. I would also maintain that the [reports] can and must make ameliorative recommendations to the company which recognizes their unsafe practices; even though they are legal.Operations need to be approached and conducted with caution; and not the abject ignoring of the dangers of bad scheduling and the human factors involved. No leg before red eye; at least 13 hours of rest after and not more than 24 hours unless it is 34 hours of rest to keep circadian rhythms correct.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported issues with scheduling of all night flights which result in fatigued pilots.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DBQ.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D DBQ
ATC / advisory: Tower DBQ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; 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 Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CFI was distracted by student during initial climbing.  My student entered the wrong traffic pattern.  When I recognized it; my airplane was in left downwind leg already.  It resulted the traffic alert with other traffic which was 300 feet below my airplane.  ATC corrected my situation and I elected to stay above 1;900 MSL and go-around in this approach in order to avoid traffic.




Synopsis: An instructor reports that his student entered an incorrect downwind which resulted in an airborne conflict with other traffic. The pilot went around to avoid the traffic.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately upon touching down on the grass portion of the west end of the runway the left MLG brake began dragging; as captured in photographs; and the aircraft began to veer left. Fifty yards later the aircraft rolled onto the asphalt portion of the runway and the dragging brake veered the airplane even further left on a trajectory off the paved portion. The downward slope of the shoulder was water saturated soft grass and the left MLG tire sank into it and added further yaw forces. Full right braking was ineffective to arrest the veering trajectory and the aircraft departed the runway; rolled on the grass shoulder for 100 yards and finally stopped when the NLG drag brace collapsed and the propellor dug in over a swath of 50 ft. While removing the aircraft with a tractor the left MLG brake continued to drag.No casualties; including to pilot; and no property damage occurred. Since it did not meet the reporting criteria neither a NTSB or FAA report was filed. Damage to the airplane consists of collapsed NLG assembly; bent propeller blades; unknown internal engine component damage.Cause of incident: left main landing gear brake lockup Cause of brake lockup: TBD




Synopsis: Pilot reported the left main brake seized during landing. The aircraft departed the runway and the aircraft was damaged with no injuries.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FDR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight; I noticed that the Flight Data Recorder 'OFF' light was extinguished. Initially I thought the light bulbs were burned out so I pressed the light and the lights came on and I verified with the light test switch that the light was operating. I know that during preflight the 'OFF' light is supposed to be illuminated on the ground with the engines not running. We entered the item into the AML and contacted Maintenance who subsequently sent a mechanic and ran the test. While troubleshooting the issue; it was discovered that the Flight Data Recorder was missing/not installed on the aircraft entirely.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the flight recorder light was inoperative; which led to the discovery that the flight data recorder was not installed.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On day-shift; around noon; I was assigned oil service on this aircraft with an [Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Chapter] 12-79-01 [for servicing]. Per the [task] card; I [made] 'Not Applicable' (NA'd) the APU [Task card] steps; as there was no message on EICAS [to service]. I was not assigned an ETOPS check; nor was the aircraft within in a three-hour ETOPS window at that time.My assignment was not part of an ETOPS check (at airport ZZZ; we are assigned to service every wide-body within one hour of arrival; regardless of destination) and I checked the EICAS page; there was no APU OIL QTY message. I also noticed the aircraft was listed as Out of Service (OTS) in our web based system. Later in the day; I observed a crew working the same plane on an ETOPS departure; and no one had physically checked the APU sight-glass. We suddenly realized this was a gotcha; and mechanics were assigned to complete the APU sight-glass on a second 12-79-01 [Servicing card]. Had this conversation not occurred; all agreed this aircraft would have departed out of compliance with the ETOPS requirements.[Recommend to] examine the specific items/ETOPS cards and resolve the possibility of the APU NOT being physically checked and how to avoid non-compliances and/or FAA Letter of Investigation (LOI). The NA is simply too easily missed.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports how a standard task card procedure to check APU oils on their wide bodied aircraft within one hour of arrival by using the EICAS page to determine if oil servicing was necessary; did not satisfy the requirement to visually check the APU oil sight-glass for ETOPS flights. The B767-300 was originally scheduled Out of Service (OTS); but later had an ETOPS flight scheduled.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I inherited approximately 20 flights from the afternoon shift; and I was scheduled to plan an additional 58 flights; with most of them scheduled to calculate out in a 3 hour window. This is an excessive amount of flights to expect a dispatcher to plan; even with the evening's fair terminal and enroute weather. The additional shifts that are being added are not keeping up with the increase in the schedule. Throw summer thunderstorms into the mix and we're looking at a potential safety issue with flights delayed awaiting their release and flights being held on the ground due to operational control issues. We're all aware that the furloughs have been recalled and a new hire class is on its way; but even once all of them are trained; they'll only be able to partially cover all the current open shifts. Those of us on the midnight shift are wondering what's in the works to help us now?Management has not adequately staffed the dispatch office; even after numerous pleas from individual dispatchers and the dispatch union. The company is dangerously close to being in violation of 14 CFR 121.395:'Aircraft dispatcher: Domestic and flag operations - Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations shall provide enough qualified aircraft dispatchers at each dispatch center to ensure proper operational control of each flight.'To maintain proper operational control one domestic midnight shift dispatcher should be responsible for two desks; not the current three.




Synopsis: Midnight shift Dispatcher reported the workload was close to violating FAR 121.395; and that even with furlough recalls and new hires; dispatchers are overloaded.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As a very new CFI-I; I was working with one of my first students. Already instrument rated; he needed to build simulated instrument time to meet the 141 requirements for his commercial course. We flew two practice approaches at Greeley-Weld County (GXY) airport and decided to finish by flying the recently revised ILS/DME Rwy 35. We flew the approach as published using the hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn at WELDS. Later that day; another instructor pointed out how close the new published course reversal is to the 7;000 FT msl shelf around Denver's class B airspace. I hadn't realized this and began to analyze the approach we had just flown earlier that day. Because of the slow speed of our Skyhawk; I believe the 1-minute legs of our course reversal kept us from an incursion into the class B; but only just.The new approach procedure had been effective for only a few weeks; and while I did take time to familiarize myself with it; I neglected to notice how much further south the new procedure would take us. I have learned a valuable lesson as a new CFI. It is important maintain my situational awareness even if it means sacrificing a teaching moment. I was so focused on teaching the approach that I lost sight of the bigger picture.




Synopsis: A newly certified CFII providing time accumulation training to another pilot flew two practice Runway 35 ILS approaches to GXY; including course reversal holding patterns at the published 7;000 MSL altitude at and beyond the IAF; I-DCI; WELDS; 14.5 NM south. He was later reminded by another instructor of his proximity to the 7;000 FT intermediate ring floor of the DEN Class B in that vicinity while conducting those reversals.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C172 flying the ILS approach in VFR conditions on a 5 mile final reported coming within 200 FT horizontally and 0 FT vertically from a PA46. The C172 had called inbound and was initially 2 1/2 miles south of final abeam the PA46 and indicating 60 KTS faster. The C172 was told to fly directly to the numbers and maintain maximum forward speed to ensure proper spacing. The C172 was then observed reducing speed to approximately 110 KTS and was angling towards a 5 mile final and not directly towards the numbers as instructed. The C172 was then told to remain south of final until he had the aircraft in sight and to not intercept the center line until he had the traffic. The C172 informed the Tower that they had the traffic and that he was no factor. The PA46 had not contacted the Tower so the Controller reached out to see if the PA46 was on frequency. The PA46 said they were and the Tower immediately issued a traffic advisory of the aircraft to their left and informed them that the traffic said they had them in sight. The PA46 said they were looking. The Tower issued a second traffic advisory and the PA46 said they had the traffic moving to their 12 o'clock and pulling away. The Tower told the PA46 to follow the traffic and cleared them to land. At no time did either pilot indicate there was a near mid air collision. The pilot of the PA46 called later to report the incident. The pilot of the PA46 made it clear when he called that he was satisfied with the air traffic service and felt the Controller did what was necessary to provide separation and traffic advisories. The main reason for his call was to turn in the other pilot for 'reckless flying' and he felt that filing a NMAC was the best way to put the incident on the other pilot's record in case of future incidents. The pilot of the C172 stated on the phone that he had the other aircraft in sight the whole time and felt that it was a 'non-incident'. A pilot deviation should be filed against the pilot of the C172 due to the fact that he did not comply with initial instructions to alter his course and increase speed. Then when he was told to remain south of final he instead joined final in close proximity to the aircraft already established on final despite having said the aircraft was 'no factor'.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a NMAC claiming one of aircraft involved failed to comply with ATC instructions.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after reaching cruise at FL340 we had an ADR1 fault ECAM. We ran the checklist. Within a minute; the autopilot disengaged; the autothrottles disengaged; all FMA's disappeared; and the FD's disappeared. We lost all autoflight capability. I hand flew the airplane while the F/O ran the ECAMs. We coordinated with ATC and dispatch to divert into KIAH. I performed an uneventful overweight landing at IAH.




Synopsis: At cruise altitude; A320 flight crew experienced ADR1 fault with the loss of FMA's and Autopilot. The flight crew diverted.
Date: 201807
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At the conclusion of the flight; the Captain made me aware that a passenger sitting in seat 1A boarded the aircraft with a portable oxygen (O2) bottle. The passenger complained that his O2 was not working and the flight attendants administered Oxygen. The gate agent and supervisor noticed he had an oxygen tank with him when he was deplaning. The Captain called the duty manager for guidance. From the flight attendants we were made aware that the gate agent wanted to do a security check; which was completed. We do not know how he made it through security with this tank.




Synopsis: A320 Pilot reported being told; post flight; that a passenger had boarded the flight with an oxygen tank.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRQ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CRQ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I worked Aircraft X from near JLI. On initial check on he was VFR. Due to TFR's near his destination CRQ; I made him IFR for the ILS approach. I had a brief conversation with him about the fires. I cleared him for the ILS approach. I shipped him to CRQ Tower outside the initial approach fix. CRQ Tower later called to say that the pilot declared an NMAC with a firefighting aircraft that had departed the TFR northbound.With TFR's near IFR approaches there should be at least some communication with the firefighting operation to advise the random aircraft of the best ingress and egress routes.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reports of NMAC with GA aircraft and Fire Fighting aircraft that departed Fire TFR.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-25 Pawnee
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Banner Tow
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Glider towing operations and with a glider on tow; the engine started running rough and then stopped completely. I signaled the glider to release and after release; made a 180 degree turn back to the airport. However there was not enough altitude to make it back and I landed in an open field with no damage and no injuries. The Glider returned to the field without damage and without injuries. I added 10 gallons of fuel and flew the aircraft the remaining 1/8 mile to the field and landed without damage or injuries.The problem was caused by me misjudging the fuel sight gauge and not counting the number of tows that had been accomplished on this tank. I departed without enough fuel to accomplish the complete tow and return with at least a 20 minute reserve.




Synopsis: PA-25 pilot reported fuel exhaustion and an off airport landing in an open field during glider tow operations.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ramp told us we had a fire on the number 2 engine on engine start during pushback. We pulled the Engine Fire Switch and discharged the bottle. Fire was suppressed and we were towed back into the gate. Crew and passengers were all OK.




Synopsis: A B737-300 number two engine developed a tail pipe fire during start so the Engine Fire Switch was pulled; the fire bottle discharged; the fire extinguished and the aircraft towed to the gate.