elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff pilot was unable to retract flaps. Pilot notified local traffic via UNICOM frequency that he was returning to land due to a flap issue. Two aircraft held short of runway. Pilot executed a normal landing. Prior to engine shut down; pilot checked circuit breakers again and the flaps breaker was blown; but not significantly raised to indicate that it was blown. When reset the flaps retracted normally. The flaps were cycled several times and the fuse did not trip again.




Synopsis: A C177B pilot reported flaps would not retract after takeoff. He returned for immediate landing and on the ground found the flaps breaker had opened.
Date: 201505
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Crew advised North Atlantic (NAT) crossing on filed NAT A; but now FL380/M85 not the filed FL350/M85.  Unable (nor the two Chiefs) to get [computer software] to show FL380/M85; it gives multiple lower altitudes.  *I did not release this flight; but assume the dispatcher brought down to cross at FL350 because was running into same thing.  The flight was at FL380 before reaching coast out point.  Why would it not be able to maintain across the tracks?  I could not get M84 to give FL380 on NAT A as well without [computer software] giving lower flight levels.  Therefore; unable to give crew accurate burn as well accurate Critical fuel scenario.  This was not a track jumper; but the hypothetical what if he was filed on NAT B and got NAT A Fl380/M85.  I would not have been able to generate what the aircraft is actually capable of doing.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher is informed by one of his flights that they have been assigned FL380/M85 on North Atlantic (NAT) A instead of FL350. The computer software will not accept this altitude and a flight plan with accurate times and fuel burns cannot be generated.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 170
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At touchdown at dusk in calm conditions the aircraft ground looped to the right at the intersection of Taxiways C and D and Runway 31.  The airplane did not strike the pavement and I did not suspect any damage.   I taxied to the ramp to further inspect the airplane before taxing to the hangar.   When the tail wheel was lifted off the ground it cocked to the right due to uneven tail wheel tension springs.   I just recently bought the airplane and further research showed that the tail wheel tension springs were the wrong size and not properly installed per [the] instructions.  I have purchased the correct hardware and replaced all improperly installed parts.




Synopsis: After ground looping a C170B; the pilot discovered the tailwheel tension springs were the incorrect part and not properly installed. The previous owner's errors were corrected.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: PM Dispatcher received turnover from AM Dispatcher. Nice quiet day. At approximately XA:00 local time Dispatcher on desk X received phone call from Captain on Aircraft X; ZZZ-ZZZ1; looking for his release. Dispatcher desk X advised Captain that his flight was assigned to desk Y and that desk was closed. Dispatch desk Y overheard this and advised desk X that desk Z has desk Y. Desk X stated to desk Y that there were live flights still on desk Y. Dispatcher desk Z went to close desk Y and reviewed screen printer looking for any messages regarding the only in the air-not at destination gate live Aircraft Y ZZZ1-ZZZ; which now was on the ground ZZZ taxiing to gate; with negative results. Dispatcher desk Z reviewed flight history and saw only a minor SID reroute  from ATC before the out time. Aircraft Y arrived at gate ZZZ without further incident. Dispatcher desk Y wrote the remaining two flights (X; Z; both ZZZ-ZZZ1).Three flights were not on the above send move lists-Y ZZZ1-ZZZ X ZZZ-ZZZ1Z ZZZ-ZZZ1Sector managers are closing dispatcher desks and then assigning/moving Dispatcher workload; but have no context of the magnitude of this powerful send move entry. They omit flights from the send move list. They have no situational awareness of the context of the dispatcher workload.Dispatchers do have the situational awareness and the proper and correct context of this powerful send move entry and will replace the sector managers.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported confusion over a Dispatcher desk being closed and who was responsible for certain flights.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X exited runway 28 Left at Tango and said forty for the gate. After clarifying forty minutes for the gate or forty past the hour; it was about twelve minutes to wait; I gave them taxi via B hold short of Q on their right hand side (runway exit). When I looked at Aircraft Y rolling out on Runway 28 Left to exit Q; while giving a pushback clearance to another aircraft at gate XX; Aircraft X was right in the middle of the intersection; and Aircraft Y had to make an evasive maneuver to continue back on Runway 28 L to the next exit. I told Aircraft X they were supposed to hold short of Q. They were then given B to the ramp as I no longer had a way to hold them with A blocked by pushback aircraft and taxiing aircraft all off of their left. Pilot conformance with instructions would have helped both of us as I hate to send them all of the way back to the ramp if I can stage the aircraft for a pushback far enough to allow them in; which eventually occurred. It just took them deeper in towards the ramp and a turn around. If there seems to be a hint of unfamiliarity; I try to help the pilots out to make sure we are on the same page. I did not get that during this event.




Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller reported a Medium Large Transport aircraft had a taxiway incursion resulting in a Large Transport aircraft taking evasive action.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-23 Apache/Geronimo Apache
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was eastbound between MLD and OCS at 11000 ft. While busy with other arrival and overflight traffic; I mistakenly thought that Aircraft X was cleared via V4 and issued him a climb clearance at HODNI to 12000 ft. As Aircraft X was slowly climbing I realized that he was not cleared via the airway. I cleared Aircraft X via V4 to GRIPS but at that point Aircraft X had been inside a 12000 ft MVA for several minutes.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reported issuing an aircraft the incorrect clearance; resulting in the aircraft flying into a higher MVA.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I took off with 4 passengers on board taking off on Runway 35; the wind was 030 at 7 KTS. After liftoff and positive rate of climb I raised the landing gear. At about 500 AGL I started our left turn when the right engine quit running and the propeller stopped in the feather position. I continued the left turn and flew the left downwind to land Runway 35. On downwind I attempted to restart the right engine 1 time and review the memory items. I continued flying the aircraft in a normal pattern and landed per single engine procedures on Runway 35 and taxied off the end of the runway. With no other problems after landing I taxied and parked the aircraft in transient parking and deplaned the passengers.

Callback: The reporter stated that the propeller governor failed which caused the propeller to feather and subsequently the engine quit. This aircraft does not have an autofeather capability so when he looked at the engine he was very surprised to see it in the feathered position so returning to the departure airport was an easy decision.



Synopsis: A CE-421C propeller governor failed on takeoff and feathered the propeller so when the engine also quit the pilot completed the engine shutdown checklist memory items and returned to land.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arriving at ANC for my shift; I was last person to Cab; so got to work CIC/CD duties. When the next person arrived; I opened CD as a stand alone position. We had one CPC scheduled for [to come in 2 hours later]. Normal staffing is 6 CPC's and a FLM. Seeing that we were short staffed until [halfway through the shift] when we would receive a FLM and CPCIT; I combined CIC and CD for short breaks knowing that LHD would need to be open [in 90 minutes]. I received several phone calls from the State of Alaska in regards to construction that was about to start. Taxiways were open; then not open; Runway 7L was scheduled to close. I made the ATIS adding all of the closures including Runway 25R (15/25 configuration). I announced the new code and stated Runway 7L closed. In the ANC LOA with the State of Alaska; runway closures must be coordinated with ANC. Past practice has always been on frequency 118.3. I was giving a briefing to the relieving Controller; head down using the checklist and explaining the current closures. While we were briefing we missed the Local Controller changing an aircraft from 25L to 25R; and clearing to land. Neither of us saw or heard that; and did not see the aircraft land. I went on break. About 20 minutes later I was called back upstairs to open CD; and was asked about Runway 25R being closed. I said I assumed it was; it was supposed to close. I was then informed that two aircraft had landed on that runway; and that Local Control never got the call that it was closed.I think this was a one time event and occurred to confusion for the most part. There was a lot going on; we were short staffed; ANC airport operations were juggling a lot of closures of taxiways; equip; etc. Fortunately the AMASS data shows the runway clear both times; and the airport vehicle stated he was clear of the runway in the safety area.


Second narrative: I don't have all the details. I was working CIC/FD/CD and trying to coordinate what was exactly being closed and opened with airport at the time. The airport did not seem to know what they were going to open and close when it came to surface areas.


Synopsis: Two Controllers from ANC Tower describe a shift where they don't know what runways and taxiways are closed or open and land two aircraft on a closed runway.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First Officer's leg.  Departing at approximately 60 knots the First Officer's window slid open.  I announced and took control of the aircraft.  The First Officer was unable to secure the window and I initiated the abort at approximately 90 knots.  The surprising nature of a window opening and the noise involved with an open window during takeoff led to the delayed abort decision.  I believe the transition training for new B737 pilots needs to address aircraft differences with more detail.


Second narrative: Cleared for takeoff and at approximately 60 knots my (RH) cockpit sliding window slid open. As I was the pilot flying; the Captain immediately announced; 'I have the aircraft.' I initially made an attempt to close and re-secure the window; but due to my lack of experience with the 737 window latching mechanism; as well as the element of surprise; I announced; 'I can't get it.' The Captain immediately initiated the reject; communicated with Tower; and exited the runway. We taxied clear of the active taxiway; determined the cause of the event; re-secured the window; and determined the brake cooling consideration. The Captain communicated with our Dispatch and Maintenance offices; a logbook entry was made; and we continued the flight to our destination without incident.I believe had I been more thorough with preflighting the cockpit window and confirming it to be fully latched and secured; this event would not have occurred. Also; having transitioned from a different type of aircraft at my previous carrier; I confused the sliding window latching mechanism with that of the other aircraft. In the future; I will be diligent to thoroughly preflight the cockpit sliding window; which is the last but definitely not the least important item on the First Officer flight deck preparation flow.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports a rejected takeoff at 90 knots when the First Officer's sliding window opens at 60 knots during takeoff.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; 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 Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [On a previous flight we] had a HYD R QTY Lo alert. The next day; we operated the same aircraft. The aircraft hydraulics had been serviced and the logbook was signed off by Maintenance. After we departed; at about FL180; the hydraulic quantity was noted as decreasing below 9 units. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight; the hydraulic quantity was decreasing to below 7 units. Contact was made with Dispatch and Maintenance via Commercial Radio. Maintenance recommended that we land in [a nearby suitable airport]. As we approached [destination] the HYD QTY LO alert illuminated; and an emergency was declared the QRH was run; and checklists completed. We landed uneventfully.After arriving at the gate I had a chance to talk with Maintenance and see what caused the loss of hydraulic fluid. The right main gear hydraulic actuator line for retracting the gear was leaking and seeping through the line. This would not have been noticed with the gear extended and difficult to identify on a walk around preflight inspection.




Synopsis: B717-200 First Officer reported loss of right hydraulic system fluid; resulting in the crew declaring an emergency and diverting to the nearest suitable airport. First Officer mentioned the system had been serviced by Maintenance the day before following a loss of fluid.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Other EA50;HA420;F9F-2 Typed
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I filed IFR flight plan. The flight was uneventful. I was cleared by ZZZ Center to descend to 10;000 feet MSL. I confirmed that clearance. I descended and was level for a minute or so when the Controller said to climb back up to 11;000 feet which was the altitude to which Controller cleared me. That was incorrect and would have been the wrong altitude for that direction of flight. The Controller admitted on the radio [to] working six frequencies at once. There was no traffic conflict. I think it is unfortunate that the Controller was so busy and the transmissions revealed Controller was very new on the job but the Supervisor should have helped out. Controller cleared me to 10;000 feet about a minute after Controller told me to climb up to 11;000 feet. Controller was clearly confused.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported the Controller was working 6 frequencies at once and issued an incorrect altitude clearance.