elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just south of the 'Bridge' NDB in New York underneath the Class Bravo I realized my alternator had stopped working. I was underneath the Class B shelf in New York. I was at about 350 MSL trying to stay under the +500 FT shelf of the Class B heading east. I was south of the shoreline. I went to my checklist and started to shed the load and tried to get it working again by popping the circuit breaker in and out. I did this twice but the alternator would not come back on. The load just kept reading zero. When I hit Long Beach I started my climb up to pattern altitude for a nearby airport. This is when I had total electrical failure. I was out from underneath of the 1;500 FT Class B shelf and I began to climb to 3;600 because I wanted to be 1;000 above the airport's Delta airspace and wait for light gun signals. I tried turning the radios on again and they came on very briefly only for me to report to Tower saying my radios would probably go out again but I did get cleared into the airspace. Not sure if they even heard me say; 'I may lose communications again.' It was in that brief moment that the radios came on that I realized I had drifted into the Bravo and was now above the 1;500 FT shelf. I immediately descended to pattern altitude. After I lost all my radios and NAVAIDS in the dead of night; I lost situational awareness and did not realize I had drifted into the Bravo. If it was during the day this might have been avoided; but in the night it was hard to reference myself. I didn't panic because I knew I would still have my engine but as a first timer of such a situation happening and being night time I don't think I took the necessary precautions that I should have taken now when I look back. I should have called Approach up as soon as I saw I had an alternator failure. It may have lessened the blow of buzzing the Bravo; if at all.




Synopsis: A pilot reported his aircraft's electrical system failed during a night VMC flight beneath NYC Class B near BRIDGE NDB and although he attempted to exit the airspace; ultimately entered nearby Class D as well as NYC Class B.
Date: 201908
Aircraft: B787-1000
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Unqualified techs assigned to work ETOPS ref GMM xx-xx-xx Section X Item X.




Synopsis: Technician stated that Company is using non ETOPS qualified technicians for ETOPS required checks per GMM.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After reaching top of climb; Operations notified myself and the Captain via ACARS that the flight release was not signed prior to departure. Earlier; during our crew brief; the Captain asked if I had reviewed the release. I answered in the affirmative. He said he would print it out via the iPad app due to our COVID-19 procedures. This is 'our' usual work-flow due to COVID procedures - we each review the release on our iPads individually and then discuss any concerns prior to the Captain signing and printing the release from his iPad.Technology challenges that are being experienced due to COVID-19 procedures. [We] are used to reviewing the release on screen together and Captain's sign via a network computer. Using the iPad is not as reliable.We should not be sent a final manifest unless the release has been signed. I'm not sure if the work-flow for the manifest being signed includes steps completed by operations/dispatchers; or if it is automated through the system ramp agents use; but add a 'checklist' step that checks for a signed release would 100% prevent this from happening in the future.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported being notified that the flight release had not been signed prior to departure. The FO stated that technology challenges as a result of COVID-19 procedures contributed to the event.
Date: 202104
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B787-1000
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo/Baggage
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Repairman
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Aircraft X.  50-DIP (Defer In Place) LP XXXXXXX refers to a temporary repair carried out on a damaged sidewall lining in FWD (forward) cargo bay; location: 12L; panel number: 121EW. ECRA (Engineering Change Request Authority) 5011-01106 PART 1. (2) And PART 1A states: 'Notify load planner that no cargo is allowed at ULD (Unit Load Device) positions 11P; 12P; 11L; 12L; or 13L. Ensure that cargo must not be placed within 5 feet of the discrepant panel in the forward; Aft; IB; or OB directions. If required for weight and balance purposes; ballast can be loaded within the restricted area.' Aircraft X arrived at ZZZZ with 4 ULDs loaded in the prohibited positions 11L; 12L. To make matters worse position 11L contained a Self-Temperature Controlled Envirotainer - this has an integral battery pack immediately adjacent to the Temporary Repaired Sidewall Panel! There are serious safety concerns here. It appears this was not picked up by or prevented by any of the included departments.ZZZZ Maintenance Operations team reviewed this LP and ECRA because it auto generated LP XXXXXXY due to the M meter applied to the original LP XXXXXXX. Upon informing Station Operations it was apparent that they and Central Cargo Loading were not aware of ANY restrictions within the FWD cargo bay.So how did this arrive at ZZZ with ULDs in these prohibited positions? And why; with meters A (dispatch) and L (loading) applied to the 50-DIP LP XXXXXXX; were the relevant departments not made aware of this restriction; only Maintenance???? Is it because the meters were applied a DIP (Carry)? This issue does not seem to occur when an MEL is applied to an Aircraft.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported communication errors between departments over a MEL that restricted cargo form being loaded within 5 feet of a damaged sidewall panel and which subsequently was loaded and flew in service.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed in a Cirrus SR22 with no passengers on a VFR Part 91 personal training flight. The weather reads as follows; ZZZ 17011g18 10SM Few 050 BKN 150 BKN 200 19/15 29.87. After departing the airfield I proceeded northbound. Approximately 5 minutes into the flight; I saw the ALT 2 Light Steady ON. I performed the ALT 2 Steady ON checklist. After performing the checklist; it was determined that the matter would remain unresolved. I then turned back for my departure airport to land as soon as practical as this is the final step in the checklist. I announced to Tower my call sign position; current ATIS information and that I had an Alternator 2 failure and would like to return to the airfield for landing. The Tower then cleared me to set for a straight in approach for 15. Several minutes later Tower said to please state the problem again. I responded that I had an alternator 2 failure 'and that it shouldn't be a problem; but I would like to return to the airport.' Tower responded with 'I heard you say it wouldn't be a problem; but just for our end we are going to go ahead and call an alert and have persons standing by; please say persons on board and fuel remaining'. I responded with; '1 person on board and 3 hrs fuel remaining'. I did not declare an emergency or request equipment to be standing by.  It was several minutes later that I was cleared to land. After landing I proceeded to the hangar ramp and was met by a fire truck. I debriefed with the emergency personnel and no further requests were made by emergency personnel or ATC. Following landing I contacted the Chief Pilot and he arranged the maintenance to be performed.




Synopsis: A SR22 ALT 2 alerted a generator two failure after takeoff so the pilot returned to the departure airport after completing the ALT 2 Steady ON checklist.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I had a possible unintentional TFR violation by clipping the corner of a sporting TFR in ZZZ. I assumed the TFR wasn't active due to COVID-19 and there not being over 30;000 people in attendance in the event. I make my flight plans on Foreflight and didn't see an active TFR in the area. However; I later realized I didn't see the TFR because I didn't have TFR's turned on on Foreflight. I now have that setting turned on on my iPad. I will prevent another occurrence like this by making sure my settings are turned on properly and by being more diligent in my flight planning both on the ground and in air.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a sporting TFR airspace incursion due to not having it selected on the app being used.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-3/Dakota/Skytrain
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 125
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] were assigned to retrieve the aircraft from the airport where the airplane had just been repainted. Extensive inspections were conducted by licensed mechanics during the two days prior to flight in order to ensure that the aircraft had been reassembled correctly and was fit for flight. For the flight; the Captain was pilot flying and the First Officer was pilot not flying. A weather briefing was conducted by the Captain and conditions en route were anticipated to be clear but breezy. The aircraft departed Runway 21 weighing 25;325 LBS (Aircraft MGTOW 26;900 LBS). Approximately 90 seconds after liftoff; both crewmembers smelled 'something hot/burning.' There was no visible smoke; but the source of the odor could not be immediately identified and a decision to return to the field was initiated approximately 2 minutes after liftoff. The return was coordinated with the Tower; who issued a clearance to enter the right downwind for Runway 21. Approximately three minutes after takeoff; while entering the right downwind for Runway 21; the right engine oil temperature was observed to be climbing rapidly above normal indication. Tower was handling other traffic in the pattern for the same runway; so given the possibility that two separate failures were now in play; the crew declared an emergency in order to ensure that access to Runway 21 would not be accidentally delayed. The approach and landing were normal and the aircraft cleared the runway and returned to the ramp normally.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A DC3 crew departed on a training flight but declared an emergency and returned to land after a hot burning smell was detected followed by rapidly rising oil temperature. The approach and landing were normal.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU Electrical
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was chief Dispatcher on duty when this position flight was enroute to ZZZ1 and about 30 minutes out at the time of event. MEL 24-X-X was on the aircraft prior to departure that inop the Number 1 generator. Crew reported over radio that the APU generator had failed and crew was down to Number 2 generator. Dispatcher referenced the QRH and found there was no procedure for this generator fault combination.At this time; I elected to get the Chief Pilot involved and explained the situation to him. After examining the QRH; it was decided that we were good to air return the aircraft to ZZZ as there was no procedure to follow up with. After discussing event with Director of Dispatch; it was realized that the aircraft should have gone to 'nearest suitable airport' per QRH CI.1.3. 3.Suggestions: I suggest that a comment be put in MEL 24-X-X stating that in the eventuality of losing another source of electrical power; the aircraft will need to proceed to nearest suitable airport. Also; a similar comment could be put at the beginning of QRH 6.4 (where the crew would probably go to) that would state if 'you are on single source of electrical power you must proceed to nearest suitable airport. I feel that something this important needs to be listed in multiple places.


Second narrative: Flight was enroute to ZZZ1 when the pilot contacted dispatch via VHF company frequency and stated they had lost the APU generator. The aircraft had the Number 1 engine driven generator on MEL 24-X-X and the QRH was consulted. The Chief Dispatcher and the Chief Pilot were consulted as a result of the phrasing stated in the QRH and a combined decision was made to have the aircraft return to ZZZ. The aircraft landed without further incident.Suggestions: The Chief Dispatcher has filled out a safety report pertaining to this decision as it pertains to nearest suitable airport with a single electrical source. After the fact; it is our understanding that nearest suitable airport of diversion does pertain to the condition the aircraft encountered.


Synopsis: Dispatchers reported directing flight crew with only one electrical generator source to return to departure airport instead of nearest airport.
Date: 202110
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight planning
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: After reviewing the Aircraft log for Aircraft X; I concluded that I was unable to operate the aircraft due to MEL and the maintenance notes associated. The aircraft had been operating with this MEL and was to continue operating for another 2 days before getting fixed. The aircraft arrived from a 24 plus hour maintenance delay down in ZZZZ due to a hydraulic issue. I felt the prudent thing for Aircraft X was to have some time at a maintenance hanger to address MEL before operating another revenue flight. We were swapped into Aircraft Y and I was unable to select Aircraft X for this report. Just want to make sure there is no confusion.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported refusing the aircraft due to an MEL that he did not feel was addressed correctly.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I am submitting this report because there are similar sounding fixes on the RIKKK4 RNAV departure in Denver. Two fairly similar sounding waypoints on the same departure. There was no course or heading deviation; but we came close due to confusion over a hear-back issue over our initial ATC clearance which was to proceed direct RIKKK. On Departure off of Runway 25; we were expecting the clearance: Runway 25 RNAV MUGBE clear for takeoff; but instead we were given 'on departure fly heading 350 Runway 25 cleared for takeoff. We departed and flew the assigned heading. After several minutes; we were cleared direct to RIKKK as filed. I read back; cleared direct RIKKK; and then looked down at my FMC as I was the Pilot Monitoring and on the bottom of page 1 of my legs page in the FMC I saw the waypoint 'RINKR.' I assumed that was the fix ATC wanted me to fly to thinking that I must have misunderstood the pronunciation of the waypoint ATC wanted us to fly to. As I began to select RINKR; my relief First Officer questioned me and asked if it was RIKKK or RINKR? I Confirmed with ATC and knew it was RIKKK. We selected direct RIKKK and proceeded on course as filed. At no time did we ever turn towards or execute direct RINKR; but very easily could have made this mistake. Please share with ATC for their general awareness that the naming of these two waypoints are too similar. I hope that these fixes may get an updated name sometime in the future to prevent an unnecessary hear back human factors navigational error.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a DEN RNAV departure with similar sounding fix names RIKKK and RINKR caused confusion.