elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending via the [Arrival] into ZZZ. After ZZZZZ we requested deviations around cell build ups on the arrival. Approach approved and said 'Direct ZZZZZ1 when able and descend to 6000 feet.' I used CWS (Control Wheel Steering) to avoid the cells. We reset the FMC to direct ZZZZZ1 and were descending to 6000 feet. I was high due to still avoiding some lower buildups but turned toward ZZZZZ1 and was descending to be at ZZZZZ1 by 6000 feet. Everything seemed fine until I noticed that it didn't look like the aircraft was going to level at 6000 feet. I was trying to figure out 'what is it doing now' when I realized that I had not gone from CWS back to CMD on the autopilot. I reacted - a little too late - and the aircraft descended below 6000 feet by about 400 feet. Approach queried as to our altitude and we responded that we were aware and correcting. The correct altitude was re-established and CMD was re-engaged; the rest of the approach and landing was completed without incident.This was a bonehead mistake. I don't use CWS much; and in an attempt to keep the ride smooth for the passengers opted to use this mode instead of Heading Select. I should have told the PM (Pilot Monitoring) to help me remember to reengage CMD since I don't use CWS much; this is a busy part of the flight and I was a little tired - in the Yellow. This would have helped maintain the shared mental model and prevent this rookie mistake.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported an altitude overshoot due to autopilot usage while evading weather.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Airline was notified by the FAA twice that Aircraft X was not broadcasting ADS-B Out Parameters.The First time the item was deferred and wasn't worked for a year due to the aircraft being in storage because of the pandemic.   The item was worked in ZZZ1 and signed off.Airline was notified again the ADS-B Out was not broadcasting.   Airline found a wire that wasn't capped as called out in COA (Certificate of Approval/Authority) X.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported one of their aircraft was found to have wiring issues causing the ADS-B to malfunction. The aircraft had been in storage for an extended time period.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 06FA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 3 NM northwest of 06FA; I encountered a drone that came close enough to hear the propeller noise from the drone inside my cabin. Neither TCAS nor ATC advised of the drone; which was approximately the size of a bird and traveling at a high rate of speed. The small size of the drone made it impossible to see in early morning haze and low light conditions. The drone did not have any operating lights. All navigation and anti-collision lights were on for my aircraft.I advised ATC of the presence of the drone; shortly before being handed off to the next ATC facility. The small size of the drone made it impossible to see until it was too late to take any evasive action; and but for luck; the drone would have impacted the aircraft.

Callback: The reporter did not identify the UAV type in the early morning light but heard it as it passed.



Synopsis: An IFR PA-28 pilot near 06FA at dawn in VMC reported a near miss at 5;000 FT with an unlit drone which was very difficult to detect in the low light conditions.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Viking/Turbo-Viking 17-30/31
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Filler Cap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff I immediately began to notice oil on my windshield.  by the time I was at 500 FT my windscreen was covered in oil.  I began an immediate left turn to join the left downwind for Runway 6.  I informed the Tower that I was returning to the airport for immediate landing with oil on my windshield.  This was acknowledged by the Tower and I was cleared to land on Runway 6.  By this time I was on downwind and starting to think I might want to land on Runway 15.  I asked the Controller if I could have Runway 15.  He cleared a Grumman [to exit] at the next taxiway and cleared me to land on Runway 15.  By this time I decided to continue to Runway 6.  Tower told me the airport was mine.  I made an uneventful and mostly blind landing on Runway 6.  The oil filler cap was loose and had come off inflight.




Synopsis: A Bellanca Viking pilot made an immediate return and landing with Tower's assistance when engine oil began coating his windshield after takeoff.  The oil filler cap had not been secured prior to takeoff.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11; Tower MRI
Second aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Light Sport aircraft inbound on Campbell Arrival [receiving] radar advisories with A11.  Instructed to enter left base Runway 25. A Piper Aztec departed Runway 25 on Campbell Departure.  Traffic was not issued with the Aztec's takeoff clearance because the Light Sport was over Campbell airstrip 110 knots on the Campbell arrival and should not have been a conflict for the Aztec per the lateral separation provided by the Campbell Departure.  A radar replay showed that the Light Sport did not fly the Campbell Arrival correctly.  From Campbell airstrip he overflew Tudor Bus Barn to Providence Hospital putting him in conflict with the Aztec outbound via Tudor Bus Barn on Campbell Departure.  If he had flown the Campbell Arrival to the left base 25 over Boniface as depicted; there would not have been a conflict.  Aircraft reported inbound from the northwest; and A11 called on the land line regarding that aircraft.  I relayed Approach's information to the pilot and issued traffic for another aircraft inbound from the northwest.  I did not return my scan back to the south until the Light Sport and the Aztec passed; at which time the Light Sport reported NMAC.  The Aztec was still on frequency and stated; 'It was not that close.'Pilot forum explaining the imperativeness of flying arrival/departure procedures precisely.  Maybe using radar replays or flight simulator depictions.




Synopsis: MRI Controller reports of an aircraft that is supposed to follow a route into the airport and does not; while a departure reports having a NMAC with the arriving aircraft. Routes would have been separated if the arrival was following the prescribed route.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Some 30 min after flight took off; the station called and informed dispatch that the flight has 11 more bags then the load manifest is stating. They informed us that the aircraft has 11 bags in its rear cargo bin and that those 11 bags are not on the load manifest. It appears that the ground crew has failed to check the rear cargo bin and fully unload the previous flight. After receiving this information the crew was informed via AIRCOM about the situation. Crew has provided information about the passenger and cargo load that they have so dispatch can verify the performance data. After running numbers through Flight Data Performance tool I have not gotten any warnings about CG being out of its limits. Crew have manually entered additional cargo weight and confirmed this information.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported ground personnel notified him 30 minutes after an aircraft departed that 11 unreported bags were in fact in the aft pit. No performance or center of gravity issues were discovered.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the PF on [this flight]. While at cruise we started receiving multiple cyan EICAS messages. They read SPOILER FAULT; LT ENGINE FAULT; RT ENGINE FAULT; PROX SYS FAULT; STAB TRIM FAULT. We then got a yellow WOW FAULT yellow caution msg. We complied with the QRH and it led us to believe that we would have degraded braking; no nose wheel steering; and possible no TR's (Thrust Reversers) upon landing. We called maintenance and confirmed these failures. We decided since [the destination airport] has runways exceeding 12;000 ft; it made the most sense to continue to our destination as the plane was otherwise behaving normally. The PIC briefed the passengers about the issue; assured them of our safe landing; but told them there would be fire trucks. I notified ATC and advised them that we would be needing [the long runway] and it was likely we would have to be towed off the runway. I requested CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) at the runway; but declined any enroute assistance. We landed without further incident; and were able to taxi to the ramp under our own power.




Synopsis: Bombardier Challenger First Officer reported receiving multiple EICAS messages indicating faults for various systems.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took over this flight at shift change and outgoing Dispatcher advised they had just received information about undeclared HAZMAT (hazardous material) being on the aircraft.  Service recovery advised that there were 98 packages of lithium batteries in position 2R; which was located too close to ADG (accessible dangerous goods) loaded in position 1L.  At this point; flight was about 3 hours out of ZZZ; notified crew of issue via ACARS; and after service recovery consulted with Duty Officer; determined no immediate safety issue existed; so flight continued to ZZZ1. I do not know what caused the issue; aircraft was already in the air when I found out about it and the error was with the loading of the dangerous goods and lithium batteries; anyway.  You would need to contact hub to find out the cause.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported aircraft en route with Hazmat cargo was incorrectly loaded at departure. Flight continued to destination since no immediate safety issue existed.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: And another of the type 'Tower Controller does not understand that a VFR pilot needs to hear that he is cleared to enter the Class B airspace'. I file a similar report about a week ago about a Controller in the LaGuardia Tower. This time a similar thing happened with Newark Tower. I had departed and was heading directly towards Newark. After a while [departure airport] hands me over; and I make my initial call with Newark Tower. He asked for my intentions; and I told him that I wanted to fly direct to Newark; then to the Statue; then northbound over the Hudson. He gave me instructions to overfly the Newark airport. When I was about to hit class B airspace; I told him that I still don't have a Class B clearance; and he replied that; yes; I would; he gave me instructions how to fly over the airport. But; VFR traffic needs a clearance to enter class B airspace (unlike IFR).I criticize the following:- A very arrogant attitude towards VFR aircraft in the NY airspace area. Every student pilot learns that VFR aircraft need a clearance to enter class B airspace; instructions won't do (unlike IFR).- A lack of competence. Tower controllers; and then from very busy airports such as LaGuardia and Newark; should know at least as much as student pilots do.- A very arrogant attitude towards responding to pilots afterwards.




Synopsis: Pilot reported he was unhappy with techniques used by New York area ATC personnel.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Was doing a training flight for a rusty pilot returning to flight. Wind was about 270/17 [kts.] G24. We were taxiing from parking to Runway XX. Pilot seemed to be fine on the taxi. I was looking down trying to fix some static on my headset by readjusting the plugs. The aircraft rotated suddenly to the right and off the taxiway into the grass. I took control and taxied back onto the taxiway. No further issues. We ended up not flying due to the strong crosswind.My analysis was that the pilot was overpowered by a strong gust from the right that was strong enough to rotate the plane about 30 degrees to the right. The pilot hit full left rudder but did not apply brakes or try and counter with brakes due to his lack of experience. My fault as I should not have been heads down. He just got hit by a very strong gust and didn't react properly. The taxi back onto the taxiway was uneventful but I was a bit more observant!




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported that while the student was taxiing a strong gust of wind rotated the aircraft and it went off the taxiway. Flight instructor regained control and taxied back onto the taxiway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out felt thump; got immediate multiple ECAMS; ended up losing green hydraulic quantity and system. First Officer ran ECAM then backed up with FM. He spoke with Dispatch and Maintenance Control. I made decision to return; configured starting on downwind. [We were] fully configured; on speed; all checklist completed by 5 miles. Uneventful visual landing and differential braking. [We] had coordinated early for tow to gate.


Second narrative: Climbing through FL200 felt thump; ECAM came on for green low hydraulic pressure; resulting from complete loss of green hydraulic quantity. Eventual ECAM settled on low green hydraulic quantity. Captain directed me to run ECAM. Shut off PTU and engine 1 hydraulic pump as per ECAM. Completed ECAM and talked with Dispatch and Maintenance Control. Completed ECAM and backed up with checklist; followed up with Landing Distance checklist; gravity gear extension checklist; and tow in checklist. Captain flew 13 NM straight in; full flaps uneventful as per FM guidance.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew experiences a thump climbing through FL200 followed quickly by an ECAM for Green Hydraulic quantity low level. After ECAM actions Captain elects to return to departure airport for an uneventful landing using a gravity gear extension.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A Cessna 150K departed ZZZ1 piloted by an instructor and student after performing a checklist backed thorough preflight check. We flew cross country to ZZZ and ZZZ2 performing touch and go landings. On our last leg from ZZZ1 to ZZZ1 we flew west of downtown Chicago underneath the ZZZ class Bravo 1900 ft. shelf. Somewhere due East of ZZZ; the aircraft engine attempted to fail and we lost altitude from 1600 ft. MSL to 1400 ft. MSL. After playing with the throttle; the engine came back to full power and we continued on to ZZZ1. Between 3-5 miles possible from ZZZ1; the engine began to fail again. All fuel items were on and rich. Playing with the throttle did nothing this time and knowing about our altitude; I made the decision to make a 180 degree turn into the golf course where a forced landing without engine power was executed. Nothing and no one was damaged or injured and a safe landing was made. The fuel level in the right tank was indicating a quarter and the left was indicating just above empty. Upon exiting the aircraft; we noticed the left fuel cap had somehow gotten disconnected from the fuel tank neck and was being held on by its chain. All flight planning fuel burn items indicated landing with 7.4 gallons of fuel left at ZZZ1.




Synopsis: C150 Instructor pilot reported fuel cap came off with loss of fuel; resulting in an off airport landing.