elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Other During ground operations
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Over the last week; we are noticing ramp moving aircraft on the hangar ramp without wing walkers; [the company] has procedures in place; as a result of aircraft damages in the past for the same operation. Now we have two groups working in the same area using two different manuals; contradicting processes. As soon as this operation started we informed the management personnel of the differences. 10 days into it; no changes have been made.Also Airport ops docs and the FAA /ATC document governing the movement of aircraft on taxiways and runways are being totally violated. The aircraft are being towed around without the required Anti-collision not turned on. Missing brake rider in the cockpit; not using aircraft radio for communication with ATC.The ops docs governing this; specifically calls out for Licensed Aircraft Mechanic to be the only person allowed outside of the Pilots; to accomplish this function (moving aircraft on taxiways and runways). These two groups are randomly drug tested.Normally the rules governing implementation of new procedures; requires a Safety Risk Assessment involving front line employees who were directly affected by the change.Once an airplane is released into service at the hangar; this group that moves an airplane are allowed to operate controls; switches; pressurize; etc. where is the chain of command. Undocumented work/operation is being performed. Will the mechanic be held responsible because of his 'release'; two FAA licensed group were in control of the aircraft throughout in the past; while the pilot and the mechanic remain part of the aircraft record; what FAA controlled document covers this other work group.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician reported that ramp personnel are moving aircraft with unauthorized personnel and not following procedures.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff; Pilot flying added takeoff thrust. Pilot monitoring set thrust. At approximately 20 knots engine takeoff message occurred. Rejected takeoff was accomplished. ATC was immediately notified and request was made to exit runway with no assistance needed. After exiting runway; request was made to troubleshoot issue. ATC cleared aircraft to park on taxiway in order to confirm all takeoff numbers were correct. Flight Attendants and passengers were notified of the issue and told to remain seated with their seatbelts fastened. Maintenance was contacted. Maintenance provided that all parameters appeared normal and that auto throttles did not arm properly. Maintenance cleared pilots to attempt another takeoff as no other issues or incorrect parameters were noted. Maintenance found no reason to have aircraft return to gate for inspection.Upon receiving clearance from ATC to taxi to runway; clearance for takeoff was once again received from ATC. No further issues occurred on takeoff. Auto throttles did not arm or were inadvertently deselected prior to adding takeoff thrust. After selecting A/T Verify TO is armed on PFD before adding thrust. After thrust is added; upon checking thrust; visually verify TO has armed properly.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 First Officer reported a rejected takeoff due to an engine takeoff message due to the failure of the auto throttles to arm.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departing [Runway] XXR from ZZZ [airport] on the ZZZZZX SID; began to accelerate through 9;000 feet MSL using speed mode. This caused the aircraft to level off around 9;300 feet MSL as it was speeding up from 250 KIAS. Captain was talking with ATC regarding our climb clearance when the acceleration began. ATC did not acknowledge the increased speed. After finishing the clearance readback the Captain noticed the increasing speed and changed to vertical speed mode to reduce airspeed. As pilot flying I reduced the thrust as well. Upon reaching 10;000 MSL we resumed normal profile climb.Limited experience taking off with wing and cowl anti-ice on. Normally upon reaching ZZZZZ1 intersection we have reached 10;000 MSL and can begin to accelerate. Because of the reduction in climb performance using the anti-ice system we were 1;000 feet lower than normal.  The use of cowl and wing and anti-ice also caused the aircraft to use a lower angle of attack to reach entered airspeed resulting in a reduced climb performance. Because of reduced loads from COVID-19 we have normally not encountered a problem reaching 10;000 MSL before the west bound turn resulting in a habit of increasing speed at ZZZZZ1 or west/east bound turn.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported exceeding 250 knots below 10;000 feet due to a reduced passenger load on climbout.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Due to winds in ZZZ we were instructed to hold and the Expect Further Clearance time was a guess from the controller. We did not have enough fuel to do even one turn in the hold so we diverted.Our aircraft had only 1 QRH in it. My iPad battery deprecated to about 17% by the time we arrived in ZZZ after the diversion. I had it plugged into the Tablet Interface Module (TIM); but with the diversion I did not notice that it was not really being charged. The battery symbol showed being charged but it was not. My concern is the removal of the 2nd QRH. I think this is a glaring safety issue.Relying on the iPad for safety critical information is unsafe. The iPad is a great tool; but as is the case with any computer equipment; it can lock up or lose power at the wrong time. I think it is imperative to have 2 QRHs in the cockpit at all times.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported his iPad didn't charge when plugged in on the ground. This resulted in a flight being conducted with only 1 operational iPad.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was designated guideman for positioning a truck for refueling prior to parking the vehicle for the night. The vehicle has a tank on both sides of the vehicle. Due to clearance issues with an aircraft dispatching from a gate; I guided my driver to back the vehicle to the non-gate side of the island; to fill the driver's side fuel tank. After fueling; we waited for the aircraft to turn out of the gate so we could pull away from the island and back the vehicle into the gate side of the island and fill the passenger side fuel tank. I crossed the island to position as guide for the reverse direction while my driver pulled forward from the island to get the vehicle into position. My driver began a left turn to line up; but started the turn too soon. The vehicle impacted the concrete bollard around the fuel island; causing damage to the Type I and Type IV fill lines. The lines ruptured; draining the full tank onto the ground.


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


Synopsis: Deicing truck driver ran into the concrete bollard around the fuel island while repositioning the truck. Deicing lines ruptured and drained the tank.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GYI.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D GYI
ATC / advisory: Tower GYI
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing had a big bounce; [aircraft] has tundra tires; ran off runway; left wing contact ground and ground looped. [I plan to] change tires and get more landing instruction from instructor. No personal injuries.




Synopsis: Light sport pilot reported striking a wing tip when the aircraft ground looped on landing.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I proceeded to the gate to get an early start on my preflight. Although there was no snow or precipitation; it was colder out than I'd experienced previously so before I walked around I walked straight back and looked out the windows at the wings. It was still fairly dark but I thought I could see the wings well enough with my flashlight to see any ice and I didn't note any. I did my initial preflight and then proceeded to do my walk-around. I'm a new First Officer; have been on the line for 3 months; and during the walk-around I was specifically looking for ice. I was surprised not to see any on the walk-around and remembered thinking it must be due to the dry air. I finished my walk-around and continued my duties in the cockpit. The Captain specifically asked when we taxied if we needed deicing and I told him no. I was completely surprised to hear we had a call indicating we had taken off with icing. Looking back now; I know the best course of action would have been to check the wings when the sun was completely up and after my walk-around and initial preflight. I think I was reluctant to re-check the top surface of the wing as I wanted to look before the aircraft was filled with passengers. Subsequently; the walk-around with zero indications of any ice led me to mistakenly believe my initial look at the top of the wings provided an accurate assessment. I was incorrect and learned a valuable lesson. I will always look in full daylight or with adequate lighting.


Second narrative: On the ground; my First Officer and I got to the aircraft. He walked back to the overwing exits and inspected the wings for frost/ice and then proceeded to do his walk-around. I asked him if there was any frost/ice and he said 'No frost or ice; we have a clean aircraft.'


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported inadvertently departing with ice on the wings because the new First Officer missed it on the walk-around.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JAC.Airport, WY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D JAC
ATC / advisory: Tower JAC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: To start out; ATC stated that no violations had occurred; only that this occurrence has occurred many times in the past. Therefore; I am filing this report. I personally contacted Tower and Center to speak to them about this issue; as Center told me on climbout that this was occurring frequently. Our flight plan is always filed as ALPIN2 KICKNE DCT SWEAT; but the clearance we received from Tower is ALPINE2 and either DIRECT SWEAT or the SWEAT TRANSITION.Now since all clearances are verbal; the confusion could arise if it is not clearly understood by the crew as to whether you are cleared DIRECT SWEAT or SWEAT TRANSITION. Yesterday we thought we were cleared ALPIN 2 then SWEAT; so on the taxi out we contacted Ground for clarification as to AFTER KICKNE DIRECT SWEAT? Ground stated 'I never stated KICKNE; I stated SWEAT.' So we flew the ALPIN 2 DIRECT SWEAT as our flight plan exactly stated but by doing this we bypassed BPI fix.




Synopsis: B737 NG Captain reported recurring confusion over how a SID clearance was issued; resulting in deviation from the expected course.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Compressor Stator/Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain set thrust levers to TOGA (Takeoff Go Around) for takeoff. At approximately 70 knots we received an Engine 1 compressor vane warning on the ECAM. Captain called My Aircraft and rejected the takeoff. I; Pilot Monitoring; called out 2 in reverse. Captain stopped on the runway. I notified ATC we rejected the takeoff. We shut the engine down and returned to the gate. Reject was initiated due to the ECAM Warning. Followed training and rejected the aircraft safely.


Second narrative: On takeoff roll with TOGA (Takeoff Go-Around Power) power set; we received an engine 1 compressor vane fault at approximately 70 kts. I verbalized 'reject; my aircraft' and stopped the aircraft on the runway. I told the passengers to remain seated. ATC was informed. We taxied back to the gate. I made 2 AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log) entries: one was for the underlying ECAM and the other was to record the speed at the time of the reject. Maintenance was called. We switched airplanes and went to [Destination]. Cause due to Compressor Vane fault.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported a rejected take-off due to engine compressor vane fault message.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Learjet 60
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was a refueling track active blocking FL200B220 at the time. A PC12 was handed off at FL220 and I requested control to descend them. They were from the north moving south landing. When they checked on I descended them to 150 for the refueling track and start a slow descent for destination. I then received a call from approach NON-Radar sector requesting an altitude for a LJ60 off of ZZZ1 to ZZZ2. I approved 140 for the LJ60. When the LJ60 checked on freq I called them radar; and then stopped the PC12 at 170 so I could keep the LJ60 climbing to 160. I had put a circle on the PC12 and was waiting for them and the LJ60 to separate at which time the refueling aircraft would be opposite direction of the LJ60 and I would be able to climb the LJ60 to my top alt of 230. While waiting I received a call from requesting the LJ60 to be at 140 for traffic he had. I told him I would and immediately descended the LJ60 to 140 seeing the traffic. At that time I had in my mind that everyone was separated so no conflictions. I then had a thought of an issue at home and wrote myself a note about it; stuck it in my pocket and started my scan. Seeing what I had done I turned the PC12 to the west just as he was going though 161 and then in the hope that the LJ60 would see the PC12 called traffic trying to get visual and then climb the LJ60. The LJ60 did have the PC12 in sight and asked if he should climb or descend. I climbed him to FL190 under the refueling track. I was so surprised that I had trouble getting the heading out for the PC12 and stammering on frequency. I'm sure that was what leads the LJ60 to ask the question that he did.It was my distracting thought that took my attention away. We only occasionally have refreshers about these types of things; it is normally about things in the area; which has always been a problem.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller has a plan to separate aircraft; becomes distracted thinking about a personal situation; and loses separation between two aircraft.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Parents stated their X year old child will not wear [a] mask when we were just about to take off. I was doing final walk through when I discovered [this]. Due to the timing I decided to not enforce mask policy. I stated to parents they may not be able to fly again if their child does not comply with policy. I asked customer service to meet plane to explain policy for their next flight.  Please remove mask policy for children under 5 at minimum.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported allowing a child to fly without wearing a face mask. The child had refused to wear it.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Wake turbulence-induced upset recovery at 6000 feet MSL which resulted in no damage or injuries. Upon executing the upset recovery procedure I asked ATC for a level off and inquired what was in front of us; to which I was told a CRJ 200; and a heavy B747 which was about 10 miles ahead and descending into ATL as well. TCAS and visual confirmation of this traffic was achieved. Given the traffic was ten miles away from us; nearly double the minimum safe distance; I am not sure that this could have been anticipated by any party involved.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a wake turbulence encounter on arrival into ATL 10 miles in trail of a B747 resulted in an upset.