elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With this aircraft I'm unable to 'dip' the tanks to get a reliable measurement of fuel onboard. I have to use the fuel gauges. Fuel assessment before flight: Left tank indicated 1/2 full; right tank indicated 5/8 full. While in flight I noticed fuel was being depleted faster than I expected and decided to return to ZZZ. Right Traffic XXR. After touchdown the aircraft started to porpoise so I went around. This happened twice. On the third attempt I was on right base to final and ATC instructed me to re-join the right downwind then (if I remember correctly) gave me a landing clearance for XXR.While turning to final; the engine quits; [priority landing] procedures ensue; [requested priority handling] with ATC; landed safely in the desert East of ZZZ. What I think happened [was] fuel starvation. I incorrectly thought I had [approximately] 2.7 hours of fuel on board based on the fuel gauges. What I've learned [is that there should be] a digital fuel management system installed.




Synopsis: M-20 Pilot reported fuel starvation caused engine failure and resulted in an air turn back and off airport landing.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skynight 320
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landing at ZZZ with about 40 minutes of fuel estimated upon arrival. Upon entering traffic pattern; I experienced some delays due to faster aircraft on final for [Runway] XXR. Cleared to land number two behind a military F-16 and ahead of another military jet; I believe an F15. Tried keeping my speed up; but it wasn't enough and told to go-around. Upon going around and entering the traffic pattern a second time; I was now at minimum fuel and declared minimum fuel. Tower told me they will get me down and that I'm number two behind a Company jet. Following behind the Company jet; I noticed they were taking a long time to get off the runway; so I slowed down as much as I could so I could avoid another go-around. The Company jet began to exit the runway as I was getting close to touching down and then I was told a second time to go-around. I replied 'Unable' and landed. By the time of touchdown the jet was clear of the runway completely. Tower and I both exchanged apologies as I was taxiing to the FBO and went on our way. I wanted to report this since I did land without a landing clearance; but I was uncomfortable with doing another lap in the pattern with such low amount of fuel. I felt the safety of flight would be compromised and decided to land rather than risk a worse situation.




Synopsis: C320 pilot reported landing without clearance due to low fuel caused by a go-around and conflict with military jet aircraft and a commercial passenger jet that didn't clear the runway in time.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Landing
Contributing factors: Manuals; Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Acting as Pilot Flying in left seat on a scheduled 91k flight with 2 passengers during closed Tower operations. Upon release from Center; the Pilot Monitoring cancelled IFR and switched to Unicom frequency; making all appropriate VFR calls for approach; landing; and taxi. Upon landing; we were met at the aircraft by Airfield Operations who asked if we knew they were on the runway on our approach. I stated I saw them on a taxiway to the left of the runway. The gentleman said he was on the runway and heard no calls on the radio on CTAF frequency. I stated I heard the Pilot Monitoring making all calls and the FBO heard all calls. Pilot Monitoring and Pilot Flying discussed radio frequencies and recognized we were on Unicom and not CTAF on arrival and the Airfield Ops personnel stated they do not monitor Unicom.After review of AIM and FOM; was still unclear as to priority of frequencies; determined crew should have been talking and monitoring CTAF. Review priority of frequencies when CTAF and Unicom is provided in addition to recommending airfield operations personnel monitor both frequencies.


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


Synopsis: A flight crew landing at an airport where the Tower was closed communicated on Unicom instead of CTAF when there were ground personnel working on the runway monitoring CTAF.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other Part 141
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am a flight instructor at a 141 school. I am currently one of the instructors teaching the Private Pilot curriculum. The error I committed was sending one of my students on a solo flight without a current solo endorsement. Normally in our curriculum; a student pilot solo endorsement would not expire before the student earns their PPL. Due to COVID; our curriculum got pushed back and winter break put a pause on the private curriculum just a few flights before the check ride. The time added was enough for all student solo endorsements to expire. Knowing this; we added a reminder in our CFI guide that follows along with our Private Pilot Training Syllabus. The reminder was placed on the flight just before the solo flight. Due to the lost proficiency over winter break; I was not ready to give this student a new solo endorsement at the beginning of this spring semester.The issue began on the flight before the solo flight. This particular flight was the fourth time I had instructed this curricular period in the last 30 days so; I felt confident on the expectations of the flight. Because of this; I did not review the CFI guide before or after the flight and therefore missed the solo endorsement reminder. With my full permission; my student then flew solo the next day.I discovered the issue when I went to send that student on their next solo flight and I asked them to prove to me they had their required documents and endorsements. I then quickly gave a new solo endorsement.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a student flew a cross country flight without having the correct solo endorsement.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Government
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working the radar at the Center; I verbally coordinated with the controller next to me that I would coordinate with Approach; that Approach can have control for descent on Aircraft X who is landing at an airport just outside of their airspace. I called Approach and told them Aircraft X will be descending to 9;000 feet; their control with me. As Aircraft X started to descend; Aircraft Y; a C525; departed southwest bound climbing to 10;000 feet from another Approach's airspace that would put him in conflict with Aircraft X. I then called them and told them to stop Aircraft Y at 8;000 feet and assign a 180 heading; to go behind Aircraft X and to avoid the TFR area. I then called the other Approach and pointed out Aircraft Y climbing to 8;000 feet on a 180 heading and that Aircraft X is still their control reference that traffic; and my control on Aircraft Y. They said point out approved. As Aircraft Y leveled off at 8;000 [feet]; Aircraft X continued his descent through his altitude. Approach then turned Aircraft Y further southeast bound to avoid conflict with Aircraft X in the descent. With the approved coordination with both Approach Controls; I'm unsure of what form of separation was being applied or if all of the approved coordination was accurately relayed to the appropriate controller.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported they handed off an arriving aircraft to an Approach Control and coordinated a plan to resolve a confliction with a departure from another Approach Control but observed the arriving aircraft descend through the altitude of the departing aircraft.
Date: 202109
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Super tugs finished moves to Gate ZXX and Gate ZXY during the XX:00 bank on DATE. They were then observed empty joining [Taxiway] XX without talking to Ramp Control; cutting off aircraft currently on [Taxiway] XX.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported two super tugs cut off a taxiing aircraft on the taxiway without talking to ramp control.
Date: 201902
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gate Agent was extremely pushy trying to board us. Lots of bags and passenger assistance needed. Left full exit row to assist elderly woman 5 rows past exit row then wait for complete boarding to go brief [the exit row passengers]. Had to arrange lots of bags to keep from checking plus unusual amount of folks going to back lavatory and interrupting.When aisle finally cleared passenger stopped me to put backpack in overhead and completely blocked; passed exit rows without briefing. After demo; passenger in exit row called me over and said they were not briefed. I briefed then. This has never happened before.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported not briefing the exit row passengers due to being distracted.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An A319 called up on a Visual Approach to the Runway XXC. I didn't have any aircraft close to Runway XXL for departure; so I switched the A319; and cleared him to land on Runway XXL. Meanwhile; Ground was taxiing about 7 aircraft out for departure; so I was checking the sequence for departure. I requested that Ground Control taxi a Dash-8 to Runway XXL at E to split up two aircraft that were departing westbound one after another. I forgot that the A319 was on final for Runway XXL and cleared a B737 for takeoff. The B737 did not respond. The A319 verified his clearance to land on Runway XXL. Initially; I cleared him to land again thinking that he was lined up for Runway XXC; as forgot I switched him to Runway XXL. I double checked the ASDE-X; looked out the window; realized that I had switched the A319 to Runway XXL and immediately sent the A319 around. The B737 had crossed a few feet over the hold line for Runway XXL; so the ASDE-X Go-Around Alert went off. I coordinated with 'Departure Y' to let him know that the A319 was a go-around; turning right heading 195; and maintaining 2;000 FT. I then shipped the A319 to departure. I would recommend reducing the amount of time I was position late in the evening.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a directed go around event where he/she failed to realized an arrival aircraft was changed to a parallel runway with traffic cleared for takeoff.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While operating Aircraft X; we had a GPWS event. I was the Pilot Monitoring (PM) and the first officer was the pilot flying (PF). It was a clear day and we had the terrain in sight the whole time. We had been cleared for the visual approach into ZZZ and were configuring to land; coming over the hills/mountains. There was some turbulence and as we were coming over the mountains; we received the GPWS warnings. I had previously mentioned to the first officer it might be advisable to stay slightly high until we we're past the hills/mountains. Once we received the warnings; we immediately stopped the descent and complied with the GPWS command. We continued on with the visual approach and landed without any issue. We detected the event had occurred when we got the GPWS warning.The cause of the event could be attributed to the mountainous terrain; slight turbulence; and the fact that we were cleared for the visual approach and descended slightly early coming over the terrain.Once we received the GPWS warnings; we arrested the descent and complied with the GPWS commands.To avoid events like this; it might be helpful to delay getting cleared for the visual until you're closer to the airports; past terrain such as hills/mountains. Also; stay at a slightly higher altitude when crossing over terrain such as hills/mountains.




Synopsis: E145 Captain reported a GPWS warning on approach with the terrain in sight.
Date: 202111
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing work on an interior log item on Aircraft X; I checked the flight deck to make sure the battery was off. I found the battery on and switched it to off not realizing the APU was running at the time. I then called my Lead to make sure it was OK to leave the battery off; but he told me the plane was leaving soon and to leave the battery on. I put the battery back on; then immediately left the aircraft and returned to the ready room and told my Lead I was off the aircraft. A few minutes later we got word that there was a fire in the tail area of aircraft X.




Synopsis: Technician reported turning the aircraft battery switch to off with the APU running; then turning the battery switch back to on a B757. Later it was reported that there was a fire in the APU compartment.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Seatbelt
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [Engineering Department] originally wrote an EA (Engineering Authorization) for replacement of numerous damaged airbag seatbelt covers to be replaced NLT (No Later Than) 2902 FC (Flight Cycles). When the TWD came; and the seat-belts could not be replaced; [Engineering Department] wrote a revision to the original EA allowing additional time provided no airbag material extrudes outside the covers. Per that EA; if there was any material found outside of the cover; the seat needed to be placed on MEL (they also mentioned a specific MEL; which is not their determination). After that EA was written; and during the accomplishment of repair instruction II of the EA; Maintenance found airbag material extruding outside of the cover. At that point ; and due to the amount of seats that would have been unusable; [Engineering Department] wrote another EA against the previous EA allowing the seats to continue in-service (USEABLE) with subsequent inspections to be accomplished. This is in direct violation of the MEL's; [Procedures Manual] ([Maintenance Control] determines which MEL is to be used)In an effort to mitigate a delay and ensure all seats were available; regardless of the safety of the passengers; [Engineering Department] issued a 3rd EA against previous EA's. The use of EA's by engineering has been out of control and getting worse. All to ensure an on-time performance disregarding the safety of passengers and crew. There needs to be a limited availability for the use of Engineering Authorizations. In the past; every EA ([Engineering] and [Line Engineering Order]) came through Maintenance Control to be issued. The Controller had to approve its use and their name was on the Authorization prior to its issuance. We were the checks and balances. Now; there aren't any. There was also extremely limited [Procedures Manual] and guidelines for issuance of an Authorization. I believe; in order to ensure safety and compliance; the use of the carte blanche EA process needs to be reined in and check and balances re-established as before.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Technician reports improper use of Engineering Authorization to defer maintenance action.