elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
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 Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After leaving the gate and engine start our flight attendants called us and notified a passenger had left batteries in their gate check bag. The passenger had their carry on that wouldn't fit in an overhead so a gate agent checked the bag. In their bag they had two lithium ion batteries (two drill batteries) loose not inserted in a drill. We talked to dispatch and referenced FOM/Hazmat Manual and determined with [Operations] we needed to gate return to remove the bag from the cargo hold and either find room in the cabin for the bag or keep the batteries with the passenger. We Gate returned; retrieved the bag/batteries; and refueled. And all decided we could make room in the cabin for the bag. I spoke again with Dispatch and [Operations Manager] regarding the passenger and Carry-On being back in the cabin and all signs pointed to us following the rules on this situation. We left with an uneventful flight. After review it seems like conflicting information on if we broke a sterile TSA program rule or not. A recent chief pilot newsletter talks about a commuting pilot not able to retrieve a checked bag from the cargo hold. This bag had been screened by TSA and considered sterile. I regret not confirming that piece of information on if we should have removed the passenger; and the bag all together and have them re-screened. As frustrating as the timing was on the passenger realizing they had batteries in their bag; they did the right thing by bringing this to our attention. This was a first for me; if there's anything I overlooked or missed feedback is welcome.Knowing what I know now; I wished I would have been more familiar with this type of situation and if the bag could be returned to the cabin. In hindsight I would have removed the batteries and gave them to the passenger to keep on their person. Ultimately; leave the carry-on in the cargo hold.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that a customer gate-checked a bag with lithium batteries; resulting in a return to the gate.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Another inoperative APU. I am up to eight now for this calendar year. Versus only three in eight years with [another company]. Why don't you understand how to maintain the Airbus properly?In this case the cabin temperature reached 86 degrees while we waited for a second air start cart after the first one did not work. This is not acceptable! Some passengers were sitting in this stifling heat for over thirty minutes; most notably the elderly passengers who pre-boarded. And they are the most susceptible to extreme temperatures. Being stuck in an aircraft cabin is not like being out in the desert where you get an occasional breeze; it's like being tossed into oven to cook!Additionally; the cross-bleed start checklist advises against single engine taxi operations if the APU generator is not available. Due to the confined gate/alley space this would have meant starting both engines at the gate and severely jeopardizing the safety of the ramp crew who would have had to work around the #2 engine while it was running at idle power. The most important breach of safety in this situation; today; is the go-minded attitude of the Company. There is no apparent regard for doing things right regardless of how long it takes to make the operation safe. Leaving on time regardless of the status of personnel and equipment; regardless of the risk to safety; regardless of the wellbeing of your passengers; is the only thing this company cares about.Stop making us fly around the county with broken APUs! This is not an acceptable way to treat people. This APU has been inoperative for four days! How can you possibly think that is acceptable behavior? Spend the money on maintenance before you kill someone!




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that inoperative APU that was being deferred over a period of 4 days caused elderly passengers to suffer in 86 degree heat for 30 minutes; causing them extreme discomfort.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMU.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At 6;000 feet night VMC. About 10NM South of Morristown Airport. I noticed a possible drone about 500 to 750 feet above us moving in the opposite direction. It was very fast and I just noticed this off the corner of my left peripheral vision. There was no TCAS identification. We reported to NY Approach a possible drone sighting.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported an airborne conflict with UAV during approach.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JNU.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D JNU
ATC / advisory: Tower JNU
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on CIC (Controller in Charge). Helicopters were in bound to the field from the northwest; expected to join a VFR arrival route. Weather wasn't good. Poor visibility and wind shear to the west. The trainee had given traffic on the inbound helicopters to Aircraft X about 10 miles out. The helicopters appeared to be south of course to avoid clouds and Aircraft X got a CA (Conflict Alert) about 5 miles from the runway. I asked the trainee if he had updated the traffic to get him to look; either out the window or at his screen at the traffic. The trainee said he already gave the traffic and it wasn't an issue. Aircraft X continued to have the CA all the way into the runway. We've had issues with helicopters; which are mostly seasonal; all summer long. The VFR arrival/departure is way too close to final for Runway 8. On weather days; they are very hard to see. These helicopter companies have been flying in flights with paying passengers all season as well. We have multiple aircraft inbound to Juneau from that area. This is not safe. The trainee should pay attention since this was very slow traffic and update traffic calls. Aircraft X had a CA with multiple helicopters inbound to the field. This 'I don't care enough to look attitude' is what's going to hurt someone someday. Helicopters with paying passengers should not be flying in flights. We need to update the helicopter arrivals/departures into Juneau Airport.




Synopsis: JNU Tower Controller in Charge reported Local Control was not issuing sufficient traffic information about helicopters on a VFR route to an air carrier on final approach.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued 3;500 ft. by my Trainee and we heard a good read back of 3;500 ft. I observed the aircraft at 3;100 ft. and I issued a climb immediately as the aircraft was a few miles from a 3;500 ft. MVA. The aircraft continued to descend further before he was able to climb. To be honest I let the Trainee go too far in running his own sequence.  Had I been working I would typically not have the aircraft that low and close to the airport if he wasn't number one for the runway. I think this may have contributed to the Pilot mistaking thinking he was cleared for the visual approach.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported during that OJT an aircraft descended below its assigned altitude and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On visual approach to Runway XXR at ZZZ; LLWS led to loss of altitude on short final and stall warning horn. [I] was able to recover and execute a go-around. [The event] occurred within airport property but prior to the runway threshold. I would estimate that I recovered at approximately 50 ft. above the ground [and] 200 ft. prior to the runway threshold; which is way closer than I would want to be. As a lower-time pilot; I don't have high confidence in my measurement estimates.I don't believe the ATIS was reporting gusty winds; so I didn't add speed to Vref as I was trained to do in gusty conditions. I think my takeaway in the future is I will add speed to Vref in moderate turbulence conditions as well because of the potential for LLWS. When executing a visual approach to XXR at ZZZ; aircraft are typically asked to keep base turn within 2 miles of airport; which makes it hard to execute a stabilized approach to final; especially in moderate turbulence conditions.




Synopsis: Single Pilot reported a stall warning and loss of altitude on short final due to a moderate turbulence event.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operating under: Other Part 107
Flight plan: None
Airspace: Class B PIT
ATC / advisory: Tower PIT
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arrived at the loss location and was in a hurry to get out of the extreme cold temperatures. Did not adequately check airspace at the location and flew without prior authorization. Airspace violation was discovered in my company's monthly flight reviews and has been discussed with me for corrective measures. Will file a flight plan next time I am in a LAANC ready airspace.




Synopsis: DJI Phantom UAV operator reported inadvertently operating in PIT Class B airspace without clearance.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During taxi into the gate at ZZZ while setting up for single engine taxi; I inadvertently selected the Number 1 ENG GEN switch off while intending to turn off the APU GEN switch to prevent a potential power cycle for a pending APU start. Because the Number 2 ENG GEN had already been turned off in preparation for single engine taxi (and awaiting the required 3 minutes for engine shutdown) switch misidentification resulted in a momentary loss of electrical power also effecting the nose wheel steering and brakes. The error was immediately noticed and power was reapplied retuning power; steering and braking immediately without incident.


Second narrative: While taxiing in; I was slowing to make the turn to enter the ramp area to park. The Number two engine was set up for single engine taxi waiting on the time to shut it down. The first Officer was going to start the APU so he went to turn off the APU Gen but accidentally hit the no.1 Gen instead of the APU gen. and we lost all power brakes and steering momentarily. He immediately realized what he had done and selected the no.1 gen back online. The aircraft drifted left of centerline and I almost missed the taxiway I was slowing for due to no brakes. The brakes and steering came back as soon as the power was selected back on and I was able to stop for the turn and correct back towards the taxiway centerline. The First Officer was new and finishing consolidation and thought he had the correct switch; immediately recognized the mistake and corrected the issue. I was looking out the window towards the gate and did not see the switch he was pushing.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a momentary loss of electrical power during taxi when the operating generator disconnect switch was inadvertently activated.
Date: 201504
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Maintenance
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CRJ-700 aircraft was pushed back from the gate. We performed engine start checks; then started engine. I; Mechanic X; called for taxi and we get clearance from Tower. Mechanic Y reports no brakes or steering. I try my brakes; no stop. I then armed thrust reverses and pull back on thrust reverser levers. I saw on the EICAS the thrust reverser did activate but not soon enough to stop us. After the incident I go to stop the engines and we go through shutdown procedures. Tower calls and ask if we need assistance or medical crew; and I tell them that we were okay. Then aircraft shutdown. I feel [that] an abnormal event and then the onset of panic caused the event along with the amount of time to fix said event. Aircraft damage. Struck against an aircraft. Surface dry.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) describes his efforts to stop their CRJ-700 aircraft during taxi out when he realized they did not have any brakes or nosewheel steering control prior to contacting another aircraft. The abnormal event and onset of panic contributed to the incident.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
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: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While waiting for traffic to pass before takeoff from an untowered airport; I heard one aircraft report on final and another on downwind. I watched the one on downwind while the one on final landed and exited the runway. At that point; aircraft previously on downwind was turning base; and I looked and did not see anyone else on final; so I taxied onto the runway and took off.About the time I rotated; another pilot announced a go-around; and then overflew me slightly to the left. As it turned out; he was on final; but I did not see him. Good thing he did a go-around; as otherwise; he may not have been able to stop before colliding with me if he had landed.In retrospect; I suspect both pilots may have announced being on final on CTAF; but I was not aware of it being two separate aircraft. Being more cognizant of the different pilots making CTAF announcements and a better scan of the final approach path may have prevented this near collision.




Synopsis: Despite CTAF transmissions and visual contact with other aircraft in the pattern; a C-150 pilot just airborne from a non-towered airport suffered an NMAC with another aircraft executing a go-around that had been on final to the same runway; but was unobserved by the reporter.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LIRF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fire Protection System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; MEL
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Lower level Flight Attendant crew rest area by Door 3R; inspection showed Halon light DISCH. Switch did not have guard or safety wire to prevent accidental discharge. Not sure if cleaners or stranger hit button. Maintenance consulted and dialog revealed a non-standard panel. The correct panel should have had a guard and procedure on label.I suggest installing a new panel or modify the existing panel to include a guard or safety wire system and recommend issuing a safety bulletin to alert crews. Without lower crew rest we lost 5 revenue seats to crew rest and left uncertainty as to what Maintenance Control thinks is installed on the aircraft.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported a non-standard fire protection panel installed in crew rest area; resulting in a delay and 5 seats to be reserved for crew rest.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was at 35;000 FT on the track out of ZZZZZ [Intersection]. As the aircraft was entering Center's airspace; the aircraft stated that due to aircraft maintenance it was turning around. I confirmed this with the aircraft via phone patch. I then treated the aircraft as an emergency. The aircraft was cleared to descend to 34;500 FT and was told upon reaching 34;500 FT; then cleared right turned direct ZZnZZw; further routing to follow.




Synopsis: En route Controller provided emergency handling to an aircraft experiencing equipment difficulties.