elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were enroute on a Part 135 Charter flight; in level flight; at 14;000 ft; with the autopilot on. I was the Pilot Flying. Center cleared us to climb to 16;000 ft. My co-pilot set 16;000 ft in the altitude window; and I selected vertical speed on the autopilot mode select panel; to initiate the climb. I then looked down at my iPad to review a question I had about the expected instrument approach we were expecting at our destination. After about 10-15 seconds; I looked up to monitor the climb; and noticed that we were in a descent. I immediately disconnected the autopilot; and entered a rapid climb to the cleared altitude of 16;000 ft. The altitude loss was approximately 800 ft; before I initiated the correction. At 15;000 ft; the controller asked us to state our altitude. My co-pilot responded; '15;000 climbing to 16;000 ft.' No other comments were made by the controller.I do not know why the autopilot descended the aircraft. I have never experienced an event such as this; on this type aircraft. I am not aware of any input I may have made to cause the aircraft to descend; instead of climb. Regardless of what caused it to happen; I accept the fact; that if I had been properly monitoring the climb; rather than reviewing the approach; I would have realized the problem before an altitude deviation occurred. It is clear that I should have transferred the controls to the Co-pilot; if I wanted to review the approach plate. Crew coordination; and procedural discipline; are of paramount importance; during all flight regimes. The controller did not mention if any conflict existed with any other aircraft during our altitude deviation.




Synopsis: The Captain of a Beechjet reported an altitude excursion during a climb on autopilot. While distracted reviewing the expected approach; the crew did not notice that the aircraft was descending rather than climbing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BDL.Airport, CT
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Fairings
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Captain volunteered to do the pre-flight; since I was the pilot flying. I programmed the box while he was outside. He came back told me he noticed 2 fasteners missing on the left over wing Emergency Exit Slide. He immediately called [Maintenance] and spoke about his concerns. The Maintenance Supervisor came out and inspected the aircraft. [Maintenance] came to the cockpit and stated indeed 2 fasteners were missing on the critical left over wing panel he quoted 'and you have a 3rd fasteners that was GLUDED in place.' [Maintenance] also stated that the Emergency Exit Slide panel had shifted down and quoted 'getting ready to depart the aircraft'.


Second narrative: Captain pre-flighted aircraft and noticed two fasteners missing on the left over wing EMERGENCY EXIT SLIDE. I immediately called [Maintenance] and sent [a] Maintenance Supervisor out to inspect the discrepancy. [Maintenance] came to my cockpit and stated that two fasteners were indeed missing and during a tightness check of the other fasteners on this critical panel he found two fasteners GLUED in; yes GLUED! [Maintenance] also stated that the EMERGENCY EXIT SLIDE panel had shifted down and 'getting ready to depart the aircraft'. These issues are not unusual for me to find and that is ALL I will say about that.


Synopsis: A319 Flight Crew reported that during pre-flight found over wing emergency slide panel had two missing fasteners as well as some fasteners that were glued in place.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 1-2 seconds after touching down on [Runway] XXR at [ZZZ] in a normal wheel landing; the airplane began to shake consistent with a flat left main tire. The tube inside the tire was losing air rapidly and the airplane began to sag to the left. Because the leak did not result in an IMMEDIATE; completely flat tire; I was able to retain directional control of the plane during rollout. Only when the plane reached a very slow speed was the tire finally so flat that directional control was no longer possible. The plane stopped roughly 10 feet off centerline; about 300 feet short of Taxiway B at [ZZZ]. It was not possible to taxi; applying engine power simply pivoted the airplane around the flat left main tire. I advised the Tower Controller of my situation and was told to shut down the aircraft in position and work the Airport Operations team to remove the plane. Because no suitable towing equipment was available for tailwheel aircraft; we changed the tube on the runway and taxied the airplane to parking uneventfully. No damage occurred to the plane or the airport. No injuries occurred. Upon inspection of the failed tube; a small tear was found at the base of the valve stem; where it joins the rubber of the tube itself. It is likely that when the wheel touched pavement; the tube shifted and the rubber at the base of the valve stem 'pinched' against the hole in the rim through which the valve stem protrudes; resulting in the tear. The tire itself had been replaced approximately 6 months ago and had about 40 hours of flight time. The tube in the tire had been in service for approximately 1 year; or about XXX hours of flight time.




Synopsis: Light sport pilot reported flat tire on landing rollout.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RIL.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 3
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: UNICOM RIL
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On ILS 26 approach we picked up the airport and cancelled IFR about 3 miles out. We made radio calls during the entire approach. At less than 200 ft. and 1/4 mile from touchdown Aircraft X made a radio call 'taking the Runway' and started pulling out onto the Runway. I immediately called traffic hold; traffic hold but they continued and never made another call on RIL CTAF. Our options were limited since the ceilings were low; we were in a valley and Aircraft X departure was the same path as the missed approach on ILS 26. To avoid collision and loosing sight of the aircraft. By going back into the clouds we opted for a low right circle to land. After calling a Right 360 back to Runway 26 I switched back to Denver Center 134.95. I asked them to inform the aircraft. On approach behind us of the circle to avoid collision. At that time they queried Aircraft X. Their response was 'our nose was already out on the Runway; We didn't see them until the last moment'. We returned safely to RIL but the outcome could have easily ended in disaster. I made contact with the company safety department who said that he would get a [report] for from their crew but I have heard nothing back from them. I also have the audio recording of RIL CTAF of the minutes the incident transpired. RIL Airport Ops is getting the video of the incident and has informed us that this is not the only time this has happened this season.




Synopsis: Captain reported executing a go around while on final approach after an aircraft taxied onto the runway.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ; I called for gear down.  When the captain put the gear handle down; we got three red unsafe lights and 2 yellow lights on the gear handle.  The gear had not come down and we had no caution lights or any other indications.   We executed a missed approach so that we can complete the alternate gear extension procedure in the non-normal  checklist.  When the guard on the inhibit switch was lifted up (the inhibit switch was not yet touched); the gear came down.At that point; we had the three green lights on the glare shield and the landing gear alternate verification lights were also  green.   At that point; we told ATC that our issue was resolved and had a safe landing.   Side note: We ferried this plane to ZZZ1 and picked up another aircraft to fly to ZZZ2 and back to ZZZ3.  When we got back to ZZZ3; we talked to maintenance about the issue with aircraft.  They told us that it was a wiring issue that prevented the gear from coming down initially.




Synopsis: A Dash 8-300 First Officer reported that after putting the gear handle down; observed three red unsafe lights.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DLS.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF DLS
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I taxied for takeoff at DLS. I made a radio call saying I was taxiing for takeoff on runway 31. Once I got to the departure end I made a radio call saying I was a taking off from runway 31. Myself and my air attack visually cleared the final for runway 31. I taxied onto the runway; powered up and then commenced with the takeoff. About halfway down the runway the contractor called and said he was crossing runway 31 and he immediately crossed runway 31 from left to right. There was no time for me to say anything. I believe he crossed 31 at the intersection of runway 7/25. I immediately pulled back on the yoke to takeoff and must have immediately started to retract the gear. Winds at the time were reported to be from about 280 degrees at 20 knots or more with higher gusts;I felt a slight bump as I cleared the ground and attributed it to not having enough left aileron input and thought it was the aircraft moving a little to the right as it became light on the ground; I completed the flight and upon landing I inspected the landing gear and found no damage. I never noticed any damage to the belly that was subsequently found two days later.I did not attempt to abort the takeoff; because I had checked the aircraft's airspeed a second or so before the contractor's radio call and it was over 70 MPH and increasing rapidly; with full power applied and the aircraft accelerating downhill. My thought when I saw the vehicle enter the runway was to get as much distance between him and me as possible.The next day I told the airport manager about the incursion and also that when we had returned from the mission [the previous] evening that the closed runway 7/25; the contractor had been working on; had not been X'd out.




Synopsis: A pilot announced his takeoff from an uncontrolled field. During the takeoff roll a contractor working on the airport announced his crossing the runway. The pilot pulled back on the yoke and raised the landing gear. He felt a slight bump as he cleared the ground. After landing he inspected the landing gear and found no damage. He did not notice damage that was done to the belly that was found two days later.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Gusting wind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground looped aircraft on roll out. The wind was 17 gusting to 24 out of 210. I selected Runway 24. On roll out; as speed decreased and the rudder became less effective; a gust weathervaned the aircraft. I'd applied full right rudder but there wasn't enough. As the airplane veered off the runway I applied both brakes to slow down. As aircraft departed the runway into the grass the tail swung around 180 degrees.There was a taxiway light broken that I assume I struck; but there was no impact mark on the aircraft. Examination of the aircraft indicated no damage. Subsequent 8 hours of flying time showed no abnormalities.




Synopsis: The pilot of a tail wheeled aircraft lost control on landing due to gusty winds; resulting in a runway excursion. The aircraft may have struck a taxiway light; however no damage to aircraft was identified.
Date: 201508
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon leveling a FL320 left fuel quantity indicated ~400 pounds greater than the right fuel quantity. [Company] procedures were applied in balancing the two indications. A short time after the balancing was completed; the fuel imbalance light indication illuminated indicating an imbalance of ~1100 pounds. The crew noticed the left fuel quantity indicator decreasing while the right fuel quantity remained constant. Because of the events that were taking place with the imbalance in such a short time; the captain elected to divert the aircraft to the nearest suitable airport. The throttles were in the closed position until power up was necessary for the landing. After gate arrival maintenance determined that in fact the left tank was 1500 pounds lower than the right. All procedures were completed in accordance with [company].




Synopsis: Upon reaching cruise altitude; the flight crew noted a fuel imbalance. Appropriate troubleshooting procedures were unsuccessful in correcting the problem; so an immediate diversion to the nearest suitable airport was accomplished.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Controller cleared us for takeoff while the preceding aircraft was still taking off. When writing this report; I listened to a website that archives ATC recordings. The LAS Tower Controller cleared the preceding aircraft for takeoff on Runway 25R. The Controller then cleared us to line up and wait; Runway 25R; full length; which I acknowledged. The Controller then cleared us for takeoff. I could see that the preceding aircraft was still on the runway; in its takeoff roll; and approximately through only half of its takeoff roll. A jetliner does not start the takeoff roll and lift off in 26 seconds. Seeing this; I refused to accept our takeoff clearance. I quickly decided to not acknowledge our takeoff clearance at all thinking that a comment of 'standby' or something similar could imply a problem of some sort with our aircraft. Therefore; I felt that no acknowledgement was the best course of action; and I did not start the takeoff roll. The Controller asked us; 'Company Flight Number; did you copy; cleared for takeoff Runway 25R; maintain visual separation with Company?'  Still; the preceding aircraft was on the runway. I delayed my response until I could see the preceding aircraft start rotation. I completed my response; 'Company Flight Number yeah; we copy; cleared for takeoff Runway 25R.' By the end of my transmission; the preceding aircraft had rotated. This Controller cleared us for takeoff while the preceding aircraft was still on the runway; not once; but twice! It took 48 seconds for the preceding aircraft to start the roll and liftoff; and yet the Controller cleared us for takeoff after only 26 seconds (first time) and 37 seconds (second time) had passed in his 48 second takeoff roll! I've seen this occur at LAS many times before; and the controllers do not effectively manage this hazard; in fact; they cause it. I have had multiple wake turbulence encounters due to LAS departures being so close to each other as well. I know LAS Tower is under a lot of pressure; but it's clear to me that LAS controllers often go way outside the envelope (and regulations) to push departures and arrivals to unsafe and/or risky levels.




Synopsis: Air Carrier departure from LAS expressed concern regarding ATC's use of 'anticipated' separation on successive Air Carrier departure aircraft.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The issue at hand is that we as safety personnel have a very small office for all of us. Not to put out too much information on the agents that had COVID-19 and got better thank god are back in the office now. I have noticed that all the managers and Supervisor have plexiglass dividing them for each other in small areas. Also having a half door plexiglass on the outside of the front door to their office before they enter the office. We should have the same thing showing the agents that we as a unit are taking this matter serious to stop the spread.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground employee reported concerns with management not taking the steps necessary to stop the spread of COVID-19 in their work environment.