elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL310 we had a caution 'HYD 1 LO PRESS' message. Followed QRH and the B pump did not function either. The steps led to 'Land at the nearest suitable airport' so I contacted Dispatch and discussed where to go. It was decided that we would divert to ZZZ. Because the number 1 EDP was not working and its' backup was also not working; and the fact that we were diverting; I declared an emergency. Weather was not a factor. The First Officer was the flying pilot but I decided that I would perform the landing and did so. EDP 1 failed as well as its backup. Had the B pump worked diversion would not have been necessary. Time is always a factor rushing can lead to errors. The change in mind-set can be a distraction (changing destination getting weather and other data). No undesired states occurred and the First Officer and Flight Attendant both did a very good job dealing with the situation.


Second narrative: En route at cruise (31;000 FT) we received the caution message 'HYD 1 LO Press'. I continued to fly while Captain ran the appropriate QRH procedure. The procedure had us turn on the 1B hydraulic pump. This proved to be ineffective; so continuing with the procedure; it required us to proceed to the nearest airport to land. Captain contacted Dispatch and together they decided; the best option (airport) for us to divert to. Captain then communicated with ATC (declared emergency); the Flight Attendant; and passengers and informed them of the situation. ATC gave us instructions and had us proceed directly to our divert airport. Since Captain declared the emergency; he assumed controls and landed the aircraft safely.


Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew experiences a hydraulic system 1 failure at FL310. The 1B pump will not pressurize the system either and the crew diverts to the nearest suitable airport for landing.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: WWR.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF WWR
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We ran the checklist and went through takeoff checklist. Went to flight idle and began our takeoff run. Co-Captain saw a CAS (Crew Alerting System) message pop up for Takeoff Config without an aural callout for no takeoff. Tried adjusting the flight idle lever and when I saw that it didn't satisfy the message I put in full reverse with heavy braking. The left tire folded first which caused the right tire to torque as well and we came to a full stop near center-line on and near the end of the runway.




Synopsis: PC-12 First Officer reported rejecting the takeoff when a takeoff configuration CAS (Crew Alerting System) message appeared during the roll. Two tires were damaged in the maneuver.
Date: 201905
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Baggage pit 4 improperly loaded which resulted in fire suppression equipment being rendered inoperative\ineffective in suppressing a potential fire. Ramp personnel were advised to rearrange bags in accordance with current requirements. This is an ongoing problem that should be passed on to all flight crews immediately. Crews should be required to check the loading of the pits :10 prior to push time.


Second narrative: Found pit 4 to be loaded improperly with 30-40 bags touching the ceiling. Possibly more. Prior to an ETOPS flight this is particularly concerning. This issue has been getting better as of late at a lot of stations. However it only takes one time for it to not matter how 'good' things have gotten. This simply needs to be rectified within our company. It was hard to tell if the ramp crew knew the rule or just didn't care about the 2 inches. The lead ramp agent did get the pit load corrected after a quick discussion. There needs to be an emphasis put on reporting this issue when a plane arrives incorrectly loaded. That would be my recommendation.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported a baggage pit was packed excessively high not allowing fire suppression if needed.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight appeared to go normally. ETOPS was used flight. I reviewed the weather and NOTAMS from the emailed flight plan. I do not have an iPad or Jepps on my computer. However; while planning for this flight; ZZZZ was utilized as an ETOPS or ETP alternate airport. However; ZZZZ had a NOTAM in which the airport could not provide the local altimeter setting: ZZZZ 04/003 ZZZZ SC AUTOMATED WEATHER BROADCAST SYSTEM VIS; ALT AND DENSITY ALT NOT AV BL 1404072004-1404302359. The local altimeter is required per the commercial chart notes for all approaches into ZZZZ (Use local altimeter setting; if not received; procedure not authorized); thereby rendering the approaches useless. Without any useable approaches; ZZZZ could not be applied as an alternate per our Ops Specs. I reviewed the approach plates for the destination and alternate airports after arriving at the airplane. I did not notice the note on the approach plate regarding the altimeter setting.   The note was probably missed because I did not cross reference the NOTAMS and the approach plates simultaneously.




Synopsis: A B777 crew flew an oceanic flight with ZZZZ as an ETOPS alternate; but it was not legal because of inadequate weather information.
Date: 201512
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The flight planning system is 'UNSAFE'! It is TOO SLOW to safely and effectively perform the necessary functions for the Aircraft Dispatcher. Today I had to change alternates due to an inaccurate forecast. Some flights were airborne and some were still on the ground. Crews received the changes in an untimely manner because the computer could not calculate the changes fast enough for the crews to get the information. This slowness has gotten slower as we get busier. The ACARS portion of the system was sending 'MAS FAIL' alerts after the information was sent to the aircraft. The message was in error as the crews were receiving the information and acknowledging the messages. Because of the error the Dispatcher now has to go back and verify whether or not the crews received the information thus slowing down the amendment process for other crews. As has been previously reported; the computer is slow to change between tabs and you can easily send ACARS messages to the wrong tail. MEL retrieval has gotten even slower than previously reported. With these problems it is very difficult for the Aircraft Dispatcher to keep up with the workload and still maintain a safe; legal; effective; efficient and timely operation.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported the problems with their computerized flight planning system.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach into ZZZ XXR ILS visual. Flaps were stuck at 5. We went around and accepted vectors in order to run the appropriate check list. [ATC was advised]. We had a flap disagree situation and while running the checklist we were able to move the flaps to 10 but that was where it stopped. We ended up using the alternate flaps checklist and landed with flaps 15. It was an uneventful landing and we taxied to the gate.


Second narrative: The FO (First Officer) was flying aircraft on an ILS final for Runway XXR around ZZZZZ and the aircraft was configured with 5 flaps prior to the incident. After ZZZZZ; the gear was lowered and the aircraft was slowed below flaps 15 limiting speed and the extension to 15 flaps was requested. It was noted; thereafter; that the flap indicator showed 5 flaps when the flap lever was set for 15. The flap lever was reset to the indicated flap setting of 5 by the Captain and the decision was made to perform a go around to investigate. No asymmetry was noted with flap lever changes. The aircraft was stabilized in the pattern and the Flaps - Trailing Edge Flap Disagree checklist was executed which directed the use of flaps 15 for landing using the Alternate Flap Extension checklist. The Alternate Flap Extension checklist was executed to configure the aircraft. The aircraft was landed without incident and taxied to the gate.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a Flap Disagree on approach; used Alternate Flap extension and landed without incident.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 1C9.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZOA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with a student pilot; practicing simulated engine failure emergency procedures. Student selected Frazier Lake airport (1C9) as the landing point. We positioned the airplane directly towards 1C9 for runway 5 which is a grass runway. I scanned the area in front and right of us to make sure there was no other traffic nearby. We descended towards runway 5 and ended the practice by going around above runway 5 at about 800 ft AGL. The next day we received a phone call from another pilot who was operating in traffic pattern at 1C9 attempting to land on the hard surface taxiway parallel to runway 5. He told us that he saw us on final flying next to him only approximately 200 ft above. He made few radio calls trying to reach us but no response; because we were not on 1C9 CTAF at the time. What have caused this event was that the student was busy performing the maneuver; forgot to change frequency to 1C9 CTAF and announce our intention. I was too focused on the training but overlooked the safety aspect of the flight. The corrective action is I should have changed frequency to 1C9 CTAF and monitor it when the student decided to head over there.




Synopsis: C152 Instructor reported failure to utilize CTAF resulted in a NMAC on final.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I arrived for work a few minutes before my shift began. I had been assigned a desk by someone from midnight shift. I'm not sure if the assignments were done by a Lead or Shift Manager. I was assigned [a] desk; which is next to [another] desk. I did not measure the distance between the Load Planner and my position. I expect it is about 6 feet; probably not any less. The Lead was assigned [a desk] with a similar separation of about 6 feet. The other 5 Load Planners working this morning had at least double the distance between them as the 2 Load Planner and the Lead at these 3 desks. The 3 of us were not happy with this arrangement. After loud complaining by several load planners for several minutes and my demanding that someone be moved; the Lead decided I could move to [a] desk which is across the aisle in the middle of 5 desks that were planned to be empty. This gave ample separation between the Load Planner and me.I don't know why this requires loud complaining. The midnight Shift Manager and/or Lead don't want to provide any flexibility in this matter; as this is at least the second day in a row with similar desk assignments with needlessly reduced social distancing. I understand there may be problems with how the phone calls 'roll' between the desks or how the teams are assigned. These issues don't seem that important at this time as our workload is very reduced due to the reduced flight schedule. These issues need to be fixed to provide a safer; cleaner work environment.




Synopsis: Load Planner expressed concern about Coronavirus related company procedures that resulted in personnel being seated too close to one another.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Flew ILS in marginal VFR conditions to Runway 9 at MIA. The Runway 9 ILS glideslope exits the Class B airspace after GRITT for 2-3 miles and reenters later. Procedure is not contained in Class B. This can be observed on Class B chart at approximately 4.8 NM to INESS where intercepting the glideslope takes you below 3;000 feet; bottom of class B at that point; and shortly thereafter re-enters. This is a known airspace error and airspace is yet to be corrected to contain the approach to the primary Class B airport. Realign Class B airspace to contain entire approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported an airspace error with regards to the Runway 9 ILS approach to MIA airport.
Date: 202107
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Not applicable
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hazmat was found in ZZZ on XX month 2021 while conducting the facility inventory. Looking at the [Cargo Record] it looks to have arrived in to ZZZ on the evening of XX/month -1/2021; so it looks like it may have arrived off flight from ZZZ1. The piece is noted as UTL [Unable To Locate] on XY month -1 2021 in ZZZ1 as per the remarks. This is a Class 3; Packing Group III; Flammable Liquid n.o.s (1-Methoxy-2-Propanol; 4-Chloro-a; a;a-trifluorotouene); UN1993; PI 355; with 0.1L in volume.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp Personnel reported missing Hazmat cargo located during facility inventory.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Final approach to Runway XX a Cessna Citation 525B was observed approx 200 ft directly overhead; overtaking my position.The Cessna took evasive action; climbing and turning West. I continued my descent; and turned southbound.Tower had initially instructed me to enter a base leg; later revising my clearance to proceed directly to the runway numbers. I was given a landing clearance; and advised that there was traffic on base that would be entering a 1 mile final. While one mile from the airport a Citation Jet was observed descending approximately 200 ft directly overhead on a northwesterly heading. Multiple position reports were requested and given to the tower from 5 miles. GPS was used to verify the accuracy of the position reports.I do not recall any traffic alert from the tower. My passenger advised that he did hear an alert from our ADS-B 978 receiver at the time of the near miss. Our aircraft was also equipped with a 1090ES transponder; along with a compliant position source that was transmitting position at the time; and is ADS-B compliant.The Citation Jet was returning to the airport after a go around precipitated by birds on the runway.I discussed the incident with the Cessna pilot and called the tower via telephone to discuss the incident. The Cessna pilot advised that he was also given a landing clearance; and was not aware of another aircraft that was cleared to land prior to him. The controller advised that he misjudged the speed of the Citation as he was not accustomed to visually judging the speed of aircraft as he normally worked in a radar equipped tower. The tower was a temporary facility.Had the controller possessed at least an iPad with an inexpensive ADS-B receiver such as a Garmin GDL-39 he would have had access to position and speed information.




Synopsis: Sport Cruiser pilot reported a near midair collision with a Citation Jet while on final approach.