elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Seatbelt
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Passenger brought to my attention that her 3-year old and 4-year old girls could not be secured in their seatbelts. On this A319 aircraft; it is equipped with the new acro seats and true enough we could not get seatbelt to tighten enough to secure the two girls. We ended up putting coats to secure them better-I know this is not the answer; but was the best we could do. I believe the way the seatback curves backwards makes the seatbelt obsolete for a small child. During pre-flight; it is recommend to change the seatbelts.

Callback: Reporter stated young children cannot be properly secured with seatbelts in the new ACRO passenger seats that have been; and are being installed on their Airbus aircraft. The retrofitted seats are narrower; but the curvature of the seatback is deeper than the previous passenger seatbacks. Seatbelts from those older seats were reinstalled with the newer seats; but the design of the old seatbelts will not tighten down enough due to the increase seatback curvature on the newer seats. Small children basically slide aft and fill up the curvature area of the seatback and the older seatbelts just cannot tighten up enough to hold them in the seat. Reporter stated that parents cannot use child booster seats because they are not FAA approved. What are parents to do?  As flight attendants; all they are looking for is a solution to the unsafe condition; but so far their Air Carrier has not responded.



Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reports that young children cannot be properly secured in the new ACRO passenger seats installed on their Airbus aircraft. The same seatbelts from the removed seats were reinstalled with the new seats; but will not tighten up enough to accommodate the increase curvature of the new seatbacks.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxi out from regional airport. On Taxiway Charlie to runway; while enroute right brake failed. Aircraft drifted to the left onto the grass. Shutdown aircraft and contact Tower to let them know; rescue trucks arrived to help push airplane back onto pavement. Tow tug arrived and tug back to maintenance hangar for repair.




Synopsis: Pilot of a Cessna 172 reported a brake failure resulting in a taxiway excursion.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Turning final for Runway 27 at SAN; abeam CIJHI; at approximately 4000 FT MSL; I saw what appeared to be a drone/Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV); fly directly across my nose within 100 FT vertical and 100 FT horizontal. The vehicle was silver in color; shiny on the right and appeared to be in the shape of an 'H'; with the center portion being longer than the edges. I estimate the entire vehicle was 12-24 inches long and possibly had Props on the left and right edges. The vehicle was moving from my left to my right; heading south to north. I immediately called it out to my Captain; but the glare-shield kept him from seeing it. I did not have to maneuver to avoid the UAV; as it passed off my right side and I had already established a clear line of sight. I landed uneventfully at SAN; upon landing; I reported the UAV and close pass to ATC with the same description as above. San Diego Ground informed me that another carrier aircraft had just reported the same UAV traffic and near miss on their landing just minutes prior to our arrival. I spoke with Company Flight Safety and gave my report. No damage was taken to Company equipment and no Passengers were affected by the incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reports a NMAC with a drone at 4;000 feet during approach to SAN.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As we lined up for takeoff on 15L we got a RUD SYS 1 INOP message. We taxied off the runway and the Captain called Maintenance over his phone to troubleshoot the issue. Maintenance was able to give a system reset which cleared the message and everything appeared normal. We taxied back for takeoff. On our takeoff roll just prior to 80 knots the same EICAS message returned so the Captain initiated an abort. A swerving to the left was noticed as the message appeared. We taxied off the runway; ran the appropriate checklists and returned to the gate. The biggest threat is the substandard maintenance at our airline now has. In addition the FAA has lack of regulatory oversight coupled with ridiculous rest rules that essentially force pilots to fly tired in a poorly maintained fleet. These threats will eventually lead to a fatal accident and it is a shame that nobody cares. The FAA is taking their time to enforce the new rest rules that everybody knows we need to operate safely. To sum up the maintenance issues this company now has as I write this report one of our aircraft sits on the tarmac with its cowling open due to the diversion from the engine failure it just had. Prior to this it has been dual cracked windshields upon rotation and multiple nose wheel steering runaways. I know this company can have better and safer maintenance than it does now.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 pilot reported a RUD SYS 1 EICAS during taxi; which they reset with Maintenance's help; but the alert recurred during the takeoff so the Captain rejected the takeoff and returned to the gate. Poor maintenance in general was reported.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSP.TRACON, MN
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was an arrival to Runway 35 and approaching the Arrival Departure Window (ADW). Aircraft Z was holding in position on Runway 30L while the previous arrival exited the runway. Aircraft Y was on final to Runway 30L. I was training a Certified Professional Controller - In Training (CPC-IT) on LCS/LCW [Local South/Local West] when the event occurred. When Aircraft Z was cleared for take-off; Aircraft X was outside of the Runway 35 ADW; however by the time they began departure roll Aircraft X was inside of the ADW. We were unable to wait for Aircraft X to exit the ADW because of traffic on final to Runway 30L. The coordinated spacing for arrivals to the airport does not work; nor does it provide any way or time to predict when a pilot will delay their departure roll; often resulting in an ADW violation. We have also been told not to take any action to re-acquire appropriate separation by sending an aircraft around since the error has already occurred. My recommendation would be to suspend Converging Runway Operations (CRO) operations at MSP until the whole situation can be reevaluated and a better arrival spacing plan worked out.




Synopsis: Minneapolis Tower Controller reported that an aircraft was cleared for takeoff when an aircraft was outside the Arrival Departure Window (ADW). Departing aircraft delayed and arrival entered the ADW and was not sent around.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Vectors on approach to OAK over the town of Pleasanton; CA at 5;000 feet. Near miss with a white drone. Advised ATC of the event.Get those things out of the sky!




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a near miss with a UAV at 5;000 ft over Pleasanton; CA.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; FSDO POI
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Notified on XX June by ZZZ FSDO that the Aircraft X aircraft I was embarked; had a near miss at ZZZ on March XX...ALMOST three months after the supposed incident. Totally unknown; unreported to me or the other pilot who was undergoing his annual 61.58 proficiency check ride in the Eclipse.  I was the PPE (Professional Pilot Examiner) conducting his final maneuver...WHICH was an RNAV to Runway XX circle to land on Runway XY. All proper reports were made on UNICOM; I especially watch the traffic on laptop and on the instruments for other traffic. To my knowledge there was no other traffic in the airport traffic pattern. We circled at 700 feet to the south of the field; turned base leg; and landed. The pilot told me that the FSDO said a Cessna 172 under ATC control now reports a near miss. I am waiting to hear what the ZZZ FSDO has to say on this matter. I suspect it is an ADS-B computer snitch or the ATC controller/other pilot have taken a long time to report the incident...OR Because the FAA folks all work from home this one got put in the 'hold' basket.This could be a dangerous time in space where an aircraft under IFR rules gets turned over to the local frequency (UNICOM) by ATC when he is established on final and does not check in or report his existence to the other traffic ahead in the pattern. It would be most useful if the other pilot writes up his report on this possible incident.




Synopsis: GA pilot examiner reported that FSDO reported a near miss to the them three months after the incident and could not recall any details of it.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The purpose of this flight was for my instrument-rated commercial student to fly 3 practice approaches for currency purposes; and I was acting as safety-pilot and instructor. My student asked me to take a look at the aircraft surfaces to check that all of the winter contamination had been removed satisfactorily; so I performed a careful check of all surfaces and found one wing required a little more additional cleaning. After I was satisfied that all contamination had been removed; we started up and taxied out. Before we reached the runup area; the Tower informed us that the FBO we departed from was recalling us back to the ramp. When enquiring the FBO on their UNICOM frequency for the reason of the recall; we were informed that there was a 'rope or pitot cover still on the wing'. As it turned out; the right-side wing tie-down rope was still attached. I was a bit embarrassed by this; and in retrospection I believe my preoccupation with the wing contamination led me to skip my usual final walk-around before flight. Since this aircraft was owned by my student; I also became complacent about not doing my own final walk-around. In the future; I will always perform a final walk-around of any aircraft that I'm getting in to (and that I'm rated to fly).




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported that an incomplete preflight resulted in the aircraft taxiing with a tie down rope attached.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Instructor and Student were landing on [Runway] XXL at ZZZ airport. The braking conditions were 3/3/3. ATC instructed the student to taxi off of the runway at [Intersection] X1. With the snow it was a harder left turn on the ground; almost a back taxi for theX1 intersection from the runway. The aircraft was turned onto A8 but had to come to a full stop and this allowed for a loss in steering authority on the ground. When going to straighten the nose out to go from back taxiing to X1 to exiting X1; the aircraft brakes became unusable and the aircraft slid to the side of X1 where there was a pile of compacted snow which [prevented] a quick recovery [of] control. An aircraft landed on the runway while [we were] almost exited off the runway at X1. Tower came on and asked if we needed to be towed off and informed everyone that there was a disabled aircraft on the runway. There was no damage to airport property or the aircraft itself. No needed assistance.




Synopsis: Light aircraft instructor reported loss of directional control on a snowy taxiway while exiting the runway.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Vans Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I just completed construction of my new vans RV14A. Test flights were completed and more than 40 hours of initial fly off time was completed locally without any issues. I had the plane professionally painted at ZZZ and intended to fly it home to ZZZ1. After my extensive preflight inspection I departed ZZZ and climbed to 6500 feet. Upon level off; I trimmed for cruise flight and engaged the Dynon autopilot which then called for nose up trim; however the trim motor apparently ran away to FULL nose down trim and failed. As soon as the nose dropped below the horizon I quickly disconnected the autopilot but the trim motor stuck at the full nose down position.In spite of full back pressure on the stick; the aircraft was pitched DOWN and I was unable to maintain altitude. I immediately turned toward the nearest GPS airport 19 miles away. My rate of descent left me doubtful that I would make it to the airport and there was only heavily wooded forest beneath me. Fortunately as I neared the treetops; the clearing ahead was the airport boundary and I had to make some extreme low level maneuvers with full power to land on the runway. I had to make a high speed landing but no damage to the aircraft. I was quite certain I was going to DIE that day. Therefore I want to make the aviation community aware of this type of equipment failure.Note: My death grip on the control stick made me unaware that I had keyed the microphone on UNICOM frequency. Other people overheard my comments on radio. The result was that emergency equipment and personnel were standing by and I was really glad to see them. I don't recall ever declaring an emergency.




Synopsis: RV14 pilot reported when he engaged the autopilot in cruise; the trim motor ran away to full nose down trim and failed. He was unable to maintain altitude and landed in that condition with difficulty.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared on visual for 24L by SoCal Approach to LAX. On heading 230; altitude 2200; the FO verified and armed the Localizer for 24L. The aircraft captured the LOC and attempted to turn inbound; and at the same time [we] encountered wake turbulence. As we realized the aircraft was not making the corrections necessary to align with 24L LOC; the FO disengaged the autopilot and manually turned the aircraft with hard 30 degree bank to avoid crossing into the 25R Approach area. We [were] still above 1000 ft and aligned with 24L and proceeded to land. Taxiing on the ground; we were advised to call SoCal TRACON for possible Pilot Deviation. We did everything possible to quickly turn off the autopilot and bank as hard as possible to avoid the 25R Approach area. We did not anticipate wake turbulence. We could have turned off the autopilot in advance of capturing to LOC once cleared on the visual.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they overshot final approach course at LAX when the autopilot failed to capture the localizer. Wake turbulence was also cited as contributing factor.