elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After take off on climb out crew failed to run after take off checklist which resulted in the flaps remaining down at 9 degrees. Flaps were over sped by 50KIAS. First Officer noticed flaps 9. After Take off checklist not performed. Aircraft was slowed down; flaps were put up. Crew should have been more vigilant in making sure flaps were up and after take off checklist was performed.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR flight crew reported encountering flap over speed during takeoff climb.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the beginning of cruise climb passing 12;500 MSL ECAM of blue hydraulic system overheat/fault. PF assumed radio functions. PNF completed ECAM action and QRH procedures for the failure and overweight landing. Since the blue system is critical to flight safety reference flight control redundancy and emergency power generation; I [we] elected to return and declared and emergency with Approach as a precaution. Dispatch notified by ATC per my request and subsequent ACARS message when time permitted. Normal overweight approach and landing. After wheel/brake inspection by CFR we taxied to the gate and swapped aircraft.  Normal flight ensued. The blue hydraulic pump overheated/faulted and shutdown during initial cruise climb. Maintenance offered the fault is usually a precursor to failure mode of that pump.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences a blue hydraulic pump overheat during initial climb and elects to return to the departure airport for an overweight landing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operating flight to SEA as First Officer and the Pilot Flying.  We had just been vectored to intercept the localizer for RW16R and were cleared ILS 16R Approach.  They had told us to slow our speed so we had our gear down and flaps 15 selected.  Just south of interstate; a relative motion of an object caught my eye.  My initial reaction for a couple seconds was 'Why there was an airplane passing below us going north bound when were on an Approach?'  But as we approached the object; I was able to discern the object as a drone.  I saw four fuzzy silver discs.  What I was seeing is what I believe to be white LED lights on the unit reflecting off of four spinning propellers making it look like fuzzy silver discs.  The drone appeared to be straight and level; not tilted in any direction as they would for forward flight.  I believe it was hovering.  The drone passed directly under our nose.  Because we were centered on the runway's localizer needle; this drone was also directly on extended runway centerline.  With the drone operating apparently already establishing their desired location; I imagine we weren't the first plane that came into close proximity to this drone on the localizer.  The Captain was busy with monitoring duties and did not see the drone so cannot speak to it. The Captain reported the drone sighting to SEA Tower ATC.  This is my first time seeing a drone from the flight deck of an aircraft.  It's hard to give a good comparison; but comparing this object to passing airplanes at 1;000 feet altitude separation; I estimate the drone to have passed just a couple or few hundred feet from our altitude.  We were descending thru about 3;500 feet MSL at the time I saw the drone.  After landing and referencing Google Maps.  I believe a good ground location we flew over at the time of the drone sighting to be in the area of Lake View Cemetery and Volunteer Park Conservatory. Require drone manufactures to implement technology that communicates with aircrafts TCAS traffic avoidance systems as drone operators; in my opinion; will always continue to break drone airspace rules and regulations.




Synopsis: First Officer reported near midair collision with a drone while centered on the localizer during approach.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Observer
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A skydiver operator allowed jumpers to continue skydiving operations through clouds at ZZZ. This happens with staff doing tandems and fun jumpers. This is a regular occurrence at this airport. It is a danger to pilots who are flying general aviation at a public airport. The company conducts their operation at ZZZ; they are so brazen about it that they even posted it [online] and brag about it. This is not the first time this has happened. The management allows tandem skydives to continue during cloudy conditions.




Synopsis: A pilot reported skydiving operations continue when jumpers must pass through clouds during descent.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Passenger Deplaning
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: DHC-8-200 aircraft arrived ZZZ September 2014 morning Gate XX. The Aft cargo door had a white info placard taped to the outside left hand side of the cargo door against white painted aircraft. It stated that the cargo door had a problem with the counter weights of the door. The door was so heavy the agent had a hard time lifting it up to get inside. The door has a safety latch catch to stop the door from coming down. You have to pull the handle to release the door. If; by chance; the latch never engaged; and it could happen; because it's so heavy that it's hard to push it up past the lock because of the weight the door could slam down with all that weight and cause a major accident to a ramp agent. This door should never be put into service like this. The aft compartment should not be used till this is fixed. This [aircraft] should be taken out of service ASAP.!!!!

Callback: Reporter stated his Air Carrier just deferred another DHC-8-200 Aft Cargo door for 10-days with the Counter Weight System broken. Doors weigh over 100-pounds and are very heavy to move. The Aft Cargo doors on their DHC-8-200 do not have a hold-open rod. Instead; a single Ramp Agent is expected to open and lift the door from the top of a Belt Loader and push the door up along tracks and hopefully be able to engage a metal plate to hold the door in place. Releasing the door is just as dangerous without the help of the door's Counter Weight System. Whether opening or closing; the weight of the door will slam down on anyone if their hands slip while attempting to move the door. He does not understand how the Counter Weight System for the door can be deferred under an MEL considering how heavy and dangerous the Aft Cargo door situation is for Ramp personnel.



Synopsis: A Ramp Agent questions the lack of safety considerations for cargo personnel who are expected to open and close the aft Cargo door on DHC-8-200 aircraft with the door Counter Weight System deferred under an MEL. The 100 pound aft cargo door could easily slam down on top of personnel while opening or closing the door.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Checklists
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The before takeoff checklist that has been employed is unsafe. My FO is heads down during most critical periods of the taxi out. The FO cannot assist in checking ATC instructions; taxi progress and overall management of the aircraft while he/she is loaded up with an 11 point checklist before we take the runway. While I am taxiing the aircraft; I cannot cross check those 11 items completely; so good and safe CRM has been replaced for an unsafe scenario before we have even taken off. Furthermore; there is no item on the before push checklist for the beacon to be on. Most airlines have such a note so people on the ramp know that the aircraft is ready or in motion. The after start checklist has no item for selecting flaps. Why would you not want to know that the expected flap setting has been selected by the gate where maintenance can have ready access of the aircraft?Evidently; it has been decided in some office that this checklist is sufficient for safety and efficiency. Earlier checklists had everything complete and called for with minimal items required before takeoff or taxi. This references the integration/merger of the two companies here. Old ways are being reintroduced in dogmatic fashion that most likely do not even compare to the manufacturers procedures. This new checklist diverts the FO from assisting the Captain for the threats that he/she is there for; among others. If anything should be added to the before takeoff checklist; it would be a reminder/mention of what the engine out procedure requires for that runway; in case there is a loss of power. The takeoff data actually has that at the bottom of the print out for the particular runway. What a safe feature; but this normal checklist is not.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported that following a corporate merger; the Before Takeoff Checklist revision requires the First Officer be heads down to complete 11 items which the Captain is unable to verify because of his/her required tasks.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was on midfield left downwind for Runway 17C; setting up for landing configuration. Aircraft was at traffic pattern altitude (1;600 FT) and at an IAS of 105 KTS. Upon lowering the landing gear; the nose gear and right main did not lock. Pilot recycled the gear and got three green [lights]. Aircraft was below gear down speed of 130 KTS. Upon reaching abeam the numbers the first notch of flaps came in and aircraft slowed to 86 KTS and turned base while the second notch of flaps came in. Aircraft then turned final and put it full flaps and prop to forward and slowed to final approach speed of 78 KTS and landed soft with no hard landing on 17C. Aircraft then taxied to FBO and shut down. Upon exiting; the aircraft the pilot then noticed on the right wing above the landing gear a 5-1/2 inch tear on the top of the wing; along with several rivets missing. Pilot looked underneath aircraft and noticed sunlight coming through the wheelwell. Pilot decided aircraft was unairworthy and left plane at FBO. Mechanic came to the conclusion that the damage was due to several hard landings in previous flights.




Synopsis: A single pilot reports noticing a 5-1/2 inch tear on top of the right wing with several rivets missing above the right Main Landing Gear (MLG) on a PA-28R180 aircraft.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the enroute phase of flight; I was transferring hydraulic fluid from one system to the other via toe brakes and parking brake. The brake was left in the on position by accident when the process was finished. The Decent and Approach Checklist was accomplished in the decent which would normally catch any caution lights on; such as the park brake light in this case. The annunciator panel was on dim instead of bright due to our early morning departure. By the time we arrived at our destination; the sun was up and any lights on the annunciator panel did not show up or were not visible in the bright light conditions. Upon landing the four wheels locked up and went flat. The aircraft was brought to a complete stop on the runaway with no smoke; fire; or injuries to passengers.




Synopsis: After utilizing the parking brake and toe brakes to equalize the hydraulic systems; a Dash 8-100 flight crew left the parking brake set and blew the main tires upon landing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Sport / Recreational
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a J3 Cub to ZZZ. I'm a new sport pilot having only gotten my license about two weeks ago. I got caught up with finding the airport; making frequency changes; getting the winds from the automatic weather reporting station; and trying to figure out how I should enter the pattern. I was not scanning outside the aircraft because I was too focused on everything inside the aircraft. I did not see an aircraft; or hear it on CTAF because I was listening to the weather; departing a runway that I was crossing the extended centerline of. I was around 2 miles away. I finally saw the aircraft as it was coming up on my right side. We both turned left and it was fine; but it scared me quite a bit. After that scare; I just turned away from the airport and left while scanning for other aircraft. Things that I think contributed to this near miss are:-I did not plan the cross country because it was short and I figured I could figure it out on the fly by getting frequencies from my sectionals. -I did not make a radio call when I was close to the airport because I had not yet planned out how I would enter the pattern. -I was too focused on planning my pattern entry that I was not aware of my surroundings. -I did not expect traffic at the airport; because I had flown there the day before and had not seen or heard anyone at the airport. Thinking about what I will do differently; I will:1. Plan out every flight I do that is not just around my home airport. Route; frequencies; predicted weather; airport runways; traffic pattern direction; all available for quick reference on a knee board. 2. Make radio calls as soon as I am within 10 miles of an airport; even if I cannot say where I plan to enter the pattern in an initial call. 3. Keep an eye on airports for traffic below me and above me; and watch out for traffic on extended centerline. Next time I am at ZZZ I will try to avoid crossing centerline unless midfield. 4. Keep in mind that airport traffic can vary day to day.




Synopsis: J3 Cub pilot reported a near miss approaching the airport.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Stall Warning System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During my preflight flow I discovered that neither stall warning system would test. We check all appropriate circuit breakers and they were all in; so we called Maintenance and relayed our situation to Dispatch. Maintenance tried everything they could think of; including completely powering down the aircraft; but neither system would test; which we all thought was highly irregular.I let Dispatch know; and as they were in the process of determining how to proceed with our flight; the Technicians summoned us to the cockpit and seemed to be very surprised. They had discovered that the cannon plugs had been DISCONNECTED from the underside of BOTH STICK SHAKERS. This condition was very hard to detect from the seated position in either seat. And why would either the First Officer or I even look to see if that had happened? I have to say that we were all shocked; to say the least; and had serious questions as to how this occurred.The plugs were reconnected and both systems tested normally. The logbook was signed off; and we departed after being delayed for over an hour. The FO and I discussed what had happened and ended up having more questions than answers as to how such a SERIOUS condition could have resulted. The COMPLETE DISABLING of an aircraft WARNING SYSTEM is something that I've never encountered in my career.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported that inoperative stall warning systems noted during preflight were due to disconnected stick shaker cannon plugs.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Lost #3 hydraulic system while configuring for landing.  Performed a go-around.  Ran QRH procedures and manually extended the landing gear.


Second narrative: Narrative #2 contained no additional information.


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew experiences the loss of the number three hydraulic system while configuring for landing.  A go-around is initiated; the QRH is consulted and the gear is manually extended.