elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Pushback
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After TSAT (Target Start Up Approval Time) was moved ahead approx 15 minutes; we inadvertently began push-back without Final DG (dangerous goods) Summary. Immediately recognized error; sent for summary; received Final DG Summary; and continued push.


Second narrative: We briefed twice in the flight deck we had DG on board and the Captain placed the Planned DG notification paper between the throttles to remind us before we pushed to have it. Inside of 20 minutes prior to our scheduled push; our TSAT was moved up to an earlier time. The ground crew was ready for push after we received notification of the earlier TSAT and as we started pushing; I noticed the paper between the throttles and advised the Captain we had pushed without the Final DG. The DG then came over the printer 2 minutes later while we started engines.


Synopsis: B-787 flight crew reported pushback was initiated without required Hazmat documentation.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in the descent for landing passing through about 15;000 FT when the HYD VOL LOW A EICAS message illuminated. We checked the hydraulic page and it showed 16%. We ran the appropriate checklist and advised Approach that we would need delay vectors; for time to finish running the checklist; and that we would be declaring an emergency. [The] Captain had talked to our passengers of the situation and said they were comfortable and at ease. After checklist was complete we advised Approach that we were ready for vectors to final. The landing was normal. We stopped aircraft on the runway and shut the engines down; leaving APU power on. We chocked the aircraft with chocks borrowed from the fire truck. FBO arrived with a van and we got our passengers loaded and on their way safely. [FBO] hooked aircraft to the tug and towed us to the ramp where we continued talks with the company; completed paperwork and secured the aircraft for the night.


Second narrative: We stopped on the runway using the Emergency Brake System. Fire and rescue was plane side in case they were needed. The aircraft was moved by tug to [FBO] ramp. Post flight the crew found fresh HYD fluid on the belly of the aircraft as well as leaking from two wicks located on the aircraft's right side fuselage above the nose wheel marked as Emergency Pneumatic Brake and Gear Relief vents. All tires appear to have fluid on them.


Synopsis: CE-750 flight crew reported loss of Hydraulic System A on descent. Crew ran the checklists; declared an emergency; and landed safely; coming to a stop with the emergency brake system.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FTW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FTW
ATC / advisory: Tower FTW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was relieved of Local Control and it was busy. During the overlap; the relieving controller had a go around with Aircraft X on Runway 17 and told them to extend upwind 3 miles. Aircraft Y was in the pattern for the parallel Runway 16 and was turning crosswind. Local Control told Aircraft Y to make a wide right 270 to enter the downwind. Majority of our attention was north of the field given that there were so many inbounds being sequenced. I looked on the radar and out the window and saw that Aircraft Y and Aircraft X were getting close; even though they shouldn't have been. I told Local Control about it and before he could key up; Aircraft X [reported] a NMAC and requested to leave the airspace.I believe Aircraft Y misunderstood what was being requested of him because it looked more like he tried to fly heading 270 instead of doing a 270 maneuver.




Synopsis: FTW Tower controller reported a near mid air collision in the pattern when one pilot misunderstood the clearance.
Date: 201502
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Preflight
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I have noticed numerous times; when updating the [electronic library] portion of the company issued iPad; not all items are downloaded properly.The page is blank (gray) instead of the document or bulletin downloading properly; I have to delete this blank (gray) paged document and attempt another download.The safety issue that I have noticed is that if there are multiple newly updated procedures; such as QRH; MEL; bulletins etc. it is almost impossible to determine which documents are downloaded due to the speed at which the preview page happens and then the download process begins.I have also noticed that occasionally; items which were previously downloaded correctly; will then disappear with only a blank (gray) page taking its place after a new update in [electronic library].This is a safety issue if I am not aware that this change took place in [electronic library].  I have contacted IT support and they have said it is a known issue.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported frequently experiencing difficulty updating his company issued iPad.
Date: 201504
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
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: Pressurization System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I felt extraordinarily tired and somewhat airsick for much of flight to Airport ZZZ.  It wasn't due to turbulence; and I was feeling unwell enough to not remember that per my company's recent instructions; the pilots had probably turned down the airflow in the cabin.  When I was feeling even sicker on the return flight; I mentioned my condition to the purser.  She reminded me of our company's fuel and cost saving measure to lower the airflow in the cabin until flight attendants call the cockpit with reports of illness or unease in the cabin.  She suggested that I tell the cockpit that I was feeling sick; and ask that the airflow be increased.  I called; and within 5 to 10 minutes; I was feeling normal.  Flight attendants are safety professionals in the cabin; and we should not have to feel sick before we get adequate oxygen flow.  This deficiency of oxygen is the definition of hypoxia.  I was feeling so sick that I wasn't thinking clearly; and the condition occurred gradually enough that I didn't realize it.  It is unsafe and unwise to deprive working crew of sufficient oxygen.  In retrospect; I don't know if I could have responded appropriately in an emergency given my oxygen deprived state.




Synopsis: A flight attendant reported feeling ill while at cruise on an out and back flight. Then she was reminded that her company had pilots use pressurization low flow to save fuel. She felt better after asking for increased air flow.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Queen Air 65/70 (Seminole)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An Air Carrier was assigned 14;000 FT. Beech 65 was VFR conducting parachute jump operations. The jump aircraft had been up and down all day; they had earlier reported that they were going to 13;000 FT. This was in my mind; but I don't remember if they said it specifically this time. The Air Carrier asked if I had traffic for him; I said 'Yes; 12 o'clock 3 miles will stay below you.' The Air Carrier responded that traffic was not below but level with him. I then asked the Beech 65 their altitude; they reported 13;300 FT. Then [I] noticed that the Air Carrier was 100 FT low; asked if they were descending. The Air Carrier reported TCAS had them descending and now they were following it to climb. Move parachute jump operations to less congested airspace.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller was alerted to a TCAS RA experienced by an Air Carrier arrival when the ceiling altitude for a parachute aircraft was miscommunicated.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was heading to ZZZ on the ZZZZZ transition of the RNAV-XX IAP. I hadn't anticipated the gusty winds to be so strongly favoring RWY XY; so when I got the TAF; I decided to execute a circling approach to land. I followed the IAP (instrument approach procedure); down to 2;000 feet MSL; breaking out of the clouds somewhere around the FAF. I turned right; entering a left-downwind for RWY XY; and realized that a hilltop with a tower was going to be in my path. I applied power to climb over it (almost back into the clouds); and then resumed my descent and turns to landing.Hours later; debriefing the situation; I noticed the admonishment I had missed earlier; buried at the end of five lines of textual notes on the approach plate: 'Circling NA South of RWYs XX and XY.' The sectional chart also depicts that RWYs XZ and XY are RP; but I wasn't relying on my sectional chart during IFR in actual IMC.I suspect the IAP designers intend RNAV-XX circling aircraft to cross the field and enter downwind for RWY XY; right-pattern. The hints were there for me to find; but being single-pilot IFR; hand-flying in actual IMC; and relatively novice at it; I erroneously thought that keeping the plane on heading; on altitude; and on speed while following the IAP was more important than reading through five lines of text as each successive line seemed to provide information that was useless to me at that moment. I guess at some point I stopped reading and missed the applicable final line.Given that pilots are human; I wonder if it might make sense to make important notes like that more prominent on the approach plate.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that a loss of situational awareness during a circle to land approach resulted in CFTT.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on a vector for a Precision Approach Radar (PAR) approach while maintaining 11;400 FT the Approach Controller called UAV traffic in our 2 to 3 o'clock position; 12;500 FT and informed us there was NO radio communications with the traffic.We were given a right turn which should have maintained a safe distance and altitude from the UAV traffic. Two seconds later while in the turn; UAV traffic turned towards our aircraft while descending to our altitude; at which time the crew received an RA advisory to descend; followed immediately by a climb advisory 'climb; climb now.'The Captain disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles; and throttles were firewalled to comply with RA advisories and the right turn steepened. Visual contact was made with the UAV; approximately less than one mile and 100 FT below moving right to left.At 12;500 FT the Captain arrested the aircraft climb per TCAS instruction 'clear of conflict' advisory and then returned the aircraft to 11;400 per ATC instructions. Then the aircraft was given a right 360 degree turn to rejoin the approach.




Synopsis: A B767-200 was given vectors to avoid a UAV and received an RA.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CID
ATC / advisory: Tower CID
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Thirty minutes after a VIP TFR ended at a Class-C airport; I was cleared to land while on an ILS approach in IMC. A few miles from the airport; I emerged into marginal VFR conditions. During my flight; I received no traffic advisories to advise of a helicopter operating near and above runways. Before my flight; in a telephone briefing from FSS; I was read a list of NOTAMs at my destination; and these did not include any that warned of helicopter operations. As I touched down on the runway; I heard the Tower advise a Cessna; which was number two for landing behind me; to go around. At the same time; my Skywatch traffic surveillance avionics (similar to TCAS) called out 'traffic! traffic!' I discovered the problem by looking over my left shoulder; where I was surprised to see a military helicopter flying parallel to me at approximately 100 AGL and 300 FT from the runway centerline. The helicopter was faster than me as I was landing at less than 80 KTS; and it overtook me as I slowed down on the runway. The helicopter continued circling the runway vicinity at low altitude for at least another fifteen minutes. Occasionally I heard Tower or Ground make calls to '[X] Helicopter;' but I never heard any warnings given to traffic of the conflict that the helicopter posed. I believe the helicopter's operations endangered my safety by presenting a significant hazard to traffic.Contributing factors include: a lack of a NOTAM; a lack of an ATC advisory to alert inbound pilots to the presence of the helicopter; and marginal VFR conditions that made it impossible to visually discover the helicopter until late in the approach. I do not believe that I was given adequate separation. If ATC is unable to keep adequate separation of general aviation traffic from a helicopter performing a mission after a VIP TFR; then the FAA should at least issue a NOTAM to advise pilots of the hazard. This NOTAM should indicate the nature of the hazard and it should define how long the hazard will persist; so that pilots can plan their flights to avoid the hazard.




Synopsis: A pilot emerged from IMC on the CID ILS to see a military helicopter 300 FT from him on short final with no communication from ATC about the near miss traffic.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was training a Developmental on the D side. The aircraft asked on frequency if we had any targets in his vicinity. The R Controller replied affirmative and called a target in his vicinity about 300 feet lower; moving away. The pilot sounded shaken and decided to end his photo mission and return to MHK. We learned later that the pilot stated to management in a phone call that the other aircraft had passed by very close. He estimated 50 feet. The R Controller was busy at the time with a steady stream of clearances and advisories on the radio. Right before the event he was talking to another aircraft going into SLN VFR and then activates an IFR flight plan. While this discussion was going on; the event occurred. No conflict alert or Mode C intruder was activated.This aircraft was operating very low; just above the MHK Class D airspace. It is possible that better advisory service would have been provided by the Tower.


Second narrative: A small high wing aircraft was performing a low-altitude photo mission in the vicinity of MHK; and had requested and received flight following. At one point; the pilot of the small high wing aircraft asked if we were showing any VFR traffic in the area. The Radar Controller replied in the affirmative; that there was an aircraft in the vicinity; and provided specific range; bearing; and altitude information. The pilot sounded shaken; and reported that he was terminating his photo mission. Later we learned that the pilot believed to have passed within fifty (50) feet of another airplane. While this had been occurring; the radar team was responsible for two sectors and was working complex traffic including approaches into other towered airports. At no point was a conflict alert or traffic warning exhibited by the Center Computer.In this particular situation; I would suggest leaving the advisory role with the control Tower; due to its proximity to and the low altitude of the event.


Synopsis: Pilot receiving flight following questioned Controller about traffic in close proximity to his aircraft. Controller did not issue traffic until pilot questioned Controller. Unknown traffic was extremely close to traffic under ATC control.