elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, 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: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: FLT ABC [returned] to ZZZ [after] the First Officer was made aware that he was exposed to an individual that tested positive for COVID; within the COVID threat exposure window. Received an ACARS message to [return] to ZZZ. Returned to ZZZ uneventfully.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an air return was made after the First Officer was notified of exposure to someone who had tested positive for COVID-19.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X was non-compliant with face mask.After door closure;  F/A B informed me that a Passenger X would not keep his mask on. I called F/D and let them know of the situation and asked to hold pushback until aft FAs determined whether Passenger X should continue on the flight. Passenger X complied initially and we departed without further issue.During cruise F/A B communicated to me that he had asked Passenger X several times to keep his mask on - as he was not eating or drinking. I went aft and asked Passenger X to wear his mask as well; which he had stuffed into his pocket. He was visibly annoyed and didn't initially comply. As he was connecting on another flight; we also notified pilots of the situation. Passenger X; was non-compliant with face mask.Better policy/procedure is needed between FA; Pilot; and station workgroups and their roles. It doesn't feel particularly safe to send someone who is knowingly non-compliant onto another crew or CSA.


Second narrative: During boarding I observed Passenger X; without his face mask on and asked him to please pull his mask up; which he did. After the demo as I walked to the back; I observed Passenger X with his face mask down again. I told him to put it up. And then I reminded him that he had agreed to wear a face mask is a condition of flying with us this evening. I told him I was not playing games. I told him; this could jeopardize his ability to fly with this airline in the future. I asked him if he understood and he said he did. Later on; after the service; I was going through the cabin picking up trash and observed Passenger X without a face mask. It was not on his face around his neck. It was nowhere to be seen. I looked him squarely in the face. He saw me looking at him and made no move to put his face mask on again. I called the A FA and told her about [the] issue. She came back and told Passenger X to put his face mask on and he did. We conferred and I explained that I had warned him twice earlier. He is connecting to ZZZ tonight or later on this morning. The flight deck has been apprised of his actions.


Synopsis: Flight attendants reported a passenger needed to be continuously reminded about having to wear a face mask.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departing Charlotte [to the north] on the SADIE transition climbing to 14;000 FT in visual conditions I could see the weather building; and asked what the plan was. The Controller acknowledged on that heading for 5 miles then a turn. The frequency was busy. I tried to tell the Controller that would not work; request a heading of 30 degrees to the left and go around the weather. The reply was 'that is what the jets are doing'. I looked at the TCAS; No aircraft at all. I then called back and requested a turn. No answer at all no one on the frequency. I then told my First Officer; 'My aircraft slow to 190 KTS'. Tried minor deviations through the weather. Immediately penetrating the weather a violent downdraft was encountered. Systems lost were both AHRS's and yaw damper which also resulted in loss of control. As I am trying to regain control of the aircraft the Controller comes on the frequency; and says you can turn. I return with; 'We need present heading and a block altitude'.After regaining control of the aircraft I managed to get all the systems back. I then called the Flight Attendant to check on her and the passengers; she says everyone appears fine; and she is OK. I then called Dispatch; talked to Maintenance Control and told them of the event encountered. They made the decision to return to Charlotte which we did without incident.  When we arrived in Charlotte the Fight Attendant told me two passengers reported they hit there heads; both said they were fine.




Synopsis: An air carrier encountered severe turbulence in thunderstorms departing CLT on the SADIE transition after the Captain requested deviations which ATC did not permit in a timely manner. The crew returned to CLT where the flight was canceled.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Ramp
Reporter qualification: Other Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A personal COMAT shipment for [Name]  was found to contain some lithium ion batteries in several pieces of equipment. One backup charger;  handheld vacuum cleaner; four pieces of lithium polymer battery operated LED lights; one  stunt drone; and PED [Personal electronic device].




Synopsis: Air Carrier ground personnel reported receiving Airways Bill for COMAT with insufficient documentation.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X (IFR) was departing on the departure from Runway 23. An Archer (Aircraft Y) (VFR) was inbound from the south for Runway 23. I issued traffic to both aircraft and instructed Aircraft Y to transition to the northwest side of Runway 23 for the departing jet. The Archer advised traffic insight and was maintaining visual separation. At that point the pilot slowly transitioned north and descended from 2;300 FT to 2;100 FT causing Aircraft X to have a TCAS RA which was later filed as a Near Mid-Air Collision. If I were to give more restrictions to the VFR Piper Archer to maintain altitude or turn faster the pilot may have not descended on his own in such close proximity to the departing jet. I may have also decided to hold the departure until the Archer was further north.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a TCAS RA event between an IFR departure and a VFR arrival maintaining visual separation with the departure.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon entering the airport traffic pattern; I lowered the landing gear; confirmed three green gear-down indicator lights; and lowered the flaps 10 degrees. Upon turning downwind for the runway; I lowered another 10 degrees of flaps. After turning to base leg; I lowered full flaps for landing. I established a stabilized final approach to land at a normal approach speed. I never had a gear warning horn. During the landing flare; I noticed that the aircraft seemed to be settling too close to the runway as compared to its normal height at touchdown. I immediately aborted the landing. I elected to divert to a nearby airport; approximately 4 miles away.During the brief flight to the nearby airport I cycled the landing gear and noted normal gear cycle sounds and three green gear-down indicator lights. The plane flew without any change in performance or flight characteristics; and made an uneventful; normal landing. After landing; upon inspection; it became evident that the tips of the propellers and one corner of the trailing edge flap had come into brief contact with the runway during the aborted landing. However; there was no evidence that the fuselage had come into contact with the runway.During the flight and post flight inspection; I did not notice any damage or failure of the aircraft or its components; which adversely affected the structural strength; performance; or flight characteristics of the aircraft; or which will require major repair or replacement of the affected component(s).




Synopsis: PA-31 pilot reported failure to lower the landing gear on final; resulting in a gear-up landing and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AWO.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class G AWO
ATC / advisory: CTAF AWO
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final less than 1/4 mile; 200 ft. above the ground; a C172 from a taxiway pulled right in front of our landing aircraft without a radio call or looking for landing traffic.  I had to take control of the aircraft and accomplish an avoiding maneuver to not collide with the intruder. That was a textbook runway incursion.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a runway incursion at a non-towered airport that resulted in a critical ground conflict.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft was scheduled to depart for MMMY with an alternate of ZZZ. Dispatch was contacted before departure to revise alternate to MMQT because of deteriorating weather in ZZZ. A takeoff alternate was also added. Paperwork for MMQT was received enroute. Approaching LRD we were contacted by Houston Center and advised that MMMY had gone below minimums. After discussion with both Dispatch and Houston Center on viable alternatives; we decided to proceed to of our alternate of MMQT. Enroute to MMQT we were contacted by Dispatch and told that MMQT was an unsuitable alternate. Dispatch recommended MMMX as our new alternate. We re-calculated our fuel; found we had enough fuel to safely make MMMX; and refiled to MMMX with Monterrey Center. Landed uneventfully at MMMX.Myself and the FO were made aware that our using MMMX as alternate did not sit well with the Mexican aviation authorities. The next morning it seemed that the MMMX station manager had smoothed over most of the issues with the Mexican authorities. I was asked to write a short explanation as to why we were there. Both the FO and I handed over copies of our badges; FAA licenses; and medicals.




Synopsis: An MD82 Captain describes the circumstances surrounding a weather diversion to MMMX and the problems this causes with the Mexican aviation authorities.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Original departure was delayed because of an aircraft swap up line.  Off going crew briefed us of multiple MELs; most of which were electrical in nature.  They also advised us of two more electrical problems they had [on their flight in].  As I began flight deck preflight duties; the Captain was discussing history problems from aircraft logbook.  I began to realize most involved electrical problems; one stating smell of burning electrical wiring in cabin and smoke in cockpit.  It was also noted aircraft was ferried after that incident for maintenance.  It was not clear to us as what action was taken to resolve the smoke other than the Air Cycle Machine was low on oil and refilled with no other problems noted.  No mention of action taken or investigation into electrical burning smell in cabin.  Now aircraft was being handed over to us with two new electrical related problems (cooling fan inop in normal switched to alternate and flickering cabin sidewall lighting).  Both Crew Members simultaneously felt the aircraft may have bigger underlying electrical problems.  After further discussion both crew members agreed it would be in the best interest of safety for our passengers and cabin crew members to not operate as a revenue flight.  The Captain then made calls to both Maintenance and Dispatch where they were not in agreement to replace the aircraft.  They were very adamant about MELing the new problems and continuing service.  At one point; a Maintenance Supervisor had told the Captain they would find someone who would fly.  After an hour of more discussion; it was decided to remove the aircraft from service.  The moral of this story was there seemed to be an inordinate amount of pressure from above to get the crew to take the aircraft!  If a crew doesn't believe an aircraft is safe to fly given logical facts and reasoning; we should err on the side of SAFETY especially with multiple electrical problems.  Aviation history has taught us this can be very deadly!




Synopsis: B737-500 First Officer reports an aircraft refusal when the logbook indicates a history of electrical issues that appear not to have been properly addressed by Maintenance.  The inbound crew reported and wrote up flickering cabin lights.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During training flights at a local practice area; I briefly confused metric and imperial measurements and exceeded the altitude limit of 400 ft AGL. The software on my remote controller presents all measurements in metric and I briefly inadvertently mistook it for imperial (feet) thinking I was only at 196.1 FEET; when in fact it was 196.1 METERS / 643 FEET due to the conversion. I had updated my software and firmware just before my flight earlier that day and neglected to double check the maximum altitude setting which had been reset during the update. System was not configured properly by PIC in preflight to allow for an automated alert. I'd like to note; during my flight; I did not see any other aircraft in the air nearby; it was a very clear day and I hope my actions did not cause any further incident. I take full responsibility for my error and will take all proper measures in the future to ensure this never happens again. I have taken extensive time to review all my training materials and the Part 107 certification guide to ensure all rules and regulations are well understood and comprehended.




Synopsis: UAV Operator reported exceeding FAR 107 altitude limit for Drone operations.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We single engine taxied out about halfway to the runway and then started the second engine.  We were #3 in line for departure when my warm up timer was noticed and shut off.  Three minutes later we were cleared onto the runway to line up and wait; which we did.  The Tower then cleared us for takeoff.  I pushed the thrust up to 5% on each engine and all seemed normal.  I then pushed the thrust up to the flex takeoff setting.  The #2 engine seemed to lag slightly on acceleration causing the aircraft to start a gradual pull right. Then with little notice; the aircraft pulled sharply to the left.  We were headed for the grass on the left side of the runway and I felt helpless to stop its turn; so I rejected the takeoff roll and applied heavy manual braking.  We stopped at a 45 degree angle to the runway centerline; still on the payment; about 20-30 yard from the roll start.  The First Officer hearing my reject; notified the Tower and noted our speed had reached about 30 knots.  We smelled a strong rubber tire odor after the reject.  We asked for permission to clear the runway and return to the gate for maintenance.  On the taxi back to the gate the brake temperature appeared normal and I did not notice any dragging of brakes either taxiing out or back into the gate.  Upon returning to the gate; Maintenance removed the tires and inspected the brakes on all wheels.  They found one brake puck on the #3 wheel (right side) still engaged and dragging and they found heavy discoloration and high heat on the #2 brake assembly (left side) although no high heat warning was indicated on the ECAM.  It would appear that the #2 left brake was either dragging and or locked up (didn't fully release) which caused the aircraft to turn sharply to the left on the initial takeoff roll.




Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences a hard left turn as takeoff thrust is added.  The takeoff is rejected and the aircraft is taxied back to the gate.  Maintenance found one brake puck on the #3 wheel (right side) still engaged and dragging and they found heavy discoloration and high heat on the #2 brake assembly (left side).