elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When in decent into LGA we were instructed to descend from 5000 to 4000 ft. fly over the Statue of Liberty and fly up the Hudson for the arrival. We complied and as we were about 4500 ft.; and just prior to overflying the Statue of Liberty; I looked down and saw what looked to be a drone just below us maybe 300-500 feet below. I saw what to be an X type drone white with black propellers and green and red blinking lights. I reported to ATC about the drone incident asked if the Captain had seen it; which he did not; and we did not need to take any evasive action for the drone. We continued in to the airport normally and had no other incidents. After landing; I contacted NYC TRACON and told him what I witnessed and the information of what he wanted to know.




Synopsis: B-737 First Officer reported encountering a drone while on vectors for landing at La Guardia.
Date: 201809
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Early this summer I was with a primary student on approach to land behind an airliner. Suddenly the airliner; for no apparent; reason decided to go around. Of course following close behind I had instructed my student to stay high and land past the point that the airliner was going to touch down. When the airliner decided to go around it created a tremendous wake event. I alerted the Tower that I would need to take immediate evasive action and turned ninety degrees to avoid the wake. In over twenty years of flying I have never had this happen and it made me think that this is not something we teach students. I think this should be an issue that is included in textbooks. I certainly will alert my students to this possibility in the future.




Synopsis: C152 Instructor Pilot reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to AUS when the air carrier aircraft preceding him executed a go-around.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching ZZZ we received  vectors for the right downwind to Runway XX. We were approximately 3 miles west of the airport when calling the airfield in sight. After being cleared for a visual approach the Captain began descending to 4;000 feet; the minimum altitude for the FAF. Shortly after leveling off at 4;000 feet and while turning right base; Approach Control issued a low altitude alert. Around 10 seconds later the EGPWS sounded with the aural warning. Auto pilot was then disengaged and the power was added to start a climb. The Captain hand flew the aircraft onto the inbound course through base and to final and landed without any further issues. The Captain started the right base turn prior to the 4;138 foot peak; but the closure rate tolerance for the EGPWS had been exceeded. We both had the airport/terrain in sight and we were very confident in our flight track; and therefore did not elect to perform an escape maneuver. [Suggest] approach brief to include the terrain height when landing in hilly/mountainous terrain. A steeper descent to make the turn to right base earlier.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported completing an uneventful landing after activating EGPWS and ATC low altitude alert.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
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 New Clearance

Narrative: I was working Finals and while controlling about 7 aircraft; my frequency transmitter was stuck on. At first I wasn't sure if it was a stuck microphone or our own transmitter. We've been having many issues with the frequencies and have called them out numerous times in the last 2 months. I went to standby transmitter/receiver and nothing changed. I called the Supervisor over and asked him to get me extra airspace since I was going to get backed up already due to complexity/volume and to tell feeder sectors to not switch any more aircraft until I could solve the issue or get to a backup frequency. I just tried to work over the transmitter issue. I could barely hear the aircraft; but they were following directions so I kept working while trying to communicate with the supervisor. I ended up having an overtake with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. I did tell Aircraft X to slow twice; but did not and could not hear the readback. Separation was lost down to about 1.4 mile. Although not a large gap between standard ILS to ILS separations; the frequency issue that caused it is the reason I am writing this report. I plan on filing another systemic report on the lack of repair of our radios and believe that this situation ended up OK; but it adds a large amount of risk to the NAS to use frequencies that do not work with our traffic volume. The only thing I did not do; was go to the ECS frequency transmitter/receiver. I believe that our frequency issues need to get resolved. We have had to deal with this many times in the last month; only to be told to go back to it and is should work. That is unacceptable due to our volume of aircraft and complexity of airspace/aircraft types including foreign air carriers and language barriers.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported that two aircraft on short final lost appropriate spacing due to an aircraft overtake when the the Controller's primary and backup radio failed.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On [day 1] Aircraft was sent to hangar by line maintenance for a left wing leading edge hydraulic leak; Number 2 slat area; hydraulic fluid running down the leading edge and over top of wing during flight. Upon further inspection; slat operation; and leading edge panel removal; I discovered the Number 1 slat actuator was leaking from rear of the actuator body during operation of slats. I decided in conference with hangar Tech Crew Chiefs (TCC) to write-up the Number 1 slat actuator to be changed or repaired. I wrote up the Number 1 slat actuator; the lower wing and upper wing surfaces to be cleaned from the hydraulic fluid leak. Instead of repairing aircraft as documented; on [day 2] a Manager signed off the Number 1 slat actuator leak as: 'Performed inspection check with hydraulics power on; no leak at this time. Also check the back of Number 1 slat actuator no leaks noted.' On [day 3]; a First Officer wrote up: 'Hydraulic fluid leaking from left wing dripping off flap track canoe.'Cause: Hydraulic leak on Number 1 slat actuator on [the aircraft] was duly written up by myself; in conference with TCC; troubleshooting performed; and documented for repair. Instead of leak being repaired as required; a maintenance manager along with possible other unknown persons; 'pencil whipped' the left wing hydraulic leak and the aircraft flew out. The leak was then written up again by flight crew on [on day 3]. This unwarranted action by a maintenance manager put aircraft and flying public in potential danger; along with lost revenue and costs of aircraft being out of service again to be correctly repaired.When an aircraft is out of service and legitimate faults are correctly documented by maintenance to be repaired; they should not be 'pencil whipped' by a maintenance manager negatively affecting safety of flight of said aircraft and the flying public at large.




Synopsis: Boeing 787 Maintenance Personnel reported writing up a hydraulic leak and the item was signed off by a Maintenance Manager without any actual repairs accomplished.
Date: 201606
Location: HWY.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Trinidad TB-20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an IFR flight plan cleared direct CSN when jumpers were released by an aircraft above me. The aircraft which was on the frequency was told to be on the lookout for me at 7;000 and cleared down to 7;500. I was told to turn 20 degrees west to skirt CSN VOR which was about a mile away. As I settled on that heading the jumper plane zoomed across my nose in a diving turn not more than a few hundred yards away. In response to the instruction to level at 7;500 (which he was already well below); he replied 'I have the traffic.' I have contacted the Potomac TRACON operations center as well as the FSDO. It would appear that the pilot of the jumper plane was trying to beat his jumpers to the ground. In the process he nearly caused a mid-air and failed to comply with ATC instructions.




Synopsis: TB20 pilot reported an NMAC with an aircraft that had released jumpers in the vicinity of HWY airport.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The following pertains to COVID-19 clarification: Due to an observation and numerous questions; we would like to have some clarification regarding the procedures that affect technicians system wide regarding the spraying/fogging process. Cabin Deep Cleaning Procedure: What is our process regarding normal clean and a suspected COVID-19 incident? Is it the Deep Clean Process outlined in the Cabin Processing Manual? If a COVID-19 case is confirmed on the aircraft; is there any other measure we are taking? Spraying/fogging process? Various departments have posted information and have briefed their crews.The spraying/fogging process can accept various chemicals. What chemicals do we plan to use? We have been told at ZZZ; we will be using X chemical. We have concerns about aeration of this chemical with respect to the Safety Data Sheet (SDS). It is our understanding that our company needs to notify and train personnel before introduction to the workforce. This informs technicians about the health risks associated with those chemicals. If our company plans on changing the chemicals utilized in the spraying/fogging process; will an effort be made to inform the various work groups? Are we currently utilizing the process at ZZZ?Quarantined planes: What is the process? Charter flights (Recovery flights): What is the process? We recommend the most stringent cleaning process!Gate Technicians: How are we going about to inform them of an inbound risk of COVID-19 infection aboard an aircraft? Any effort to discuss and train our workforce on expectations; health risks; and procedures would be helpful.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported questions and concerns relating to cleaning techniques for aircraft during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending with Approach I was given a clearance to turn to [a] HDG of 110 and descend from 8;000 FT to 4;000 FT. I selected the HDG and VS modes and started a descent at the rate of 1;000 fpm. I had received ATIS Info [and] had programmed the RNAV approach. As I started the descent; I was cleared direct to an intersection that was not in my legs page and I initially could not find the intersection on the approach chart. As the aircraft descended to around 5;500 FT; the descent rate decreased but due to trying to locate the intersection and enter it into the FMS; I did not notice the descent rate change. As I was asking ATC to verify the fix; I received a traffic alert and when I finished my transmission; ATC was giving me a turn to a heading of 090 for traffic avoidance.My transmission was covering ATC as he was trying to separate the traffic. After leveling off at 4;000 FT I again attempted to enter the fix into the flight plan with no success. After asking for a heading and an altitude to sort out the problem; I discovered the auto sequencing mode had become inhibited. A discontinuity message would not allow me to enter the fix and I could not display it in the map mode. Once this was corrected I was given direct the fix for the approach. This was my first flight in this aircraft and this model of avionics. I have not flown single pilot in many years and the workload; in addition to FMS issues was very distracting. Also; while trying to verify the location of the fix; I was transmitting at the same time ATC was advising of my descent rate decrease.




Synopsis: The pilot of a King Air 350 experienced a heading deviation while attempting to program the unfamiliar FMS during an RNAV approach; resulting in a traffic alert.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Waste Water Disposal System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We departed without the re-issue of Final Weights after returning to gate to comply with MEL restriction. Maintenance had found several items during walk around and told us he suspected a Forward Lavatory Flush Motor problem and had to talk to Maintenance Control. We received ACARS message not to taxi without MRD but not to delay push so I released brakes but told the pushback crew to 'hold push while we wait for the MRD' since we had received an ACARS message saying the MRD was on the way.Right after brake release we received Final Weights. 15 minutes later there was still no MRD; no sign of the mechanic and we were not able to contact Operations at anytime while on the ground. I called Maintenance Control directly to inquire about the MRD and learned they were waiting for a call back from the mechanic regarding compliance with an MEL on Forward Lavatory Flush Motor. The water had to be turned off in the lavatory; and the door blocked off. The crew tried again to call Operations on company frequency but still no contact.I then told the Push Crew that the brakes would be set; and we needed a Jet Bridge driver; so the mechanic could perform maintenance. I set the brakes; and then used the ACARS 'return to gate' prompt. The mechanic was then on and off the aircraft in three minutes to comply with the MEL. We then received the maintenance release; the brakes were released and the flight departed normally. Once at cruise an ACARS message was received stating 'INVALID WEIGHTS DUE TO YOUR RETURN TO BLOCKS. BE SURE YOU HAVE NEW WEIGHTS BEFORE YOUR NEXT DEPARTURE'. The message for Invalid Weights was received 39 minutes after takeoff. The crew thought they had the Final Weights because they came out so fast after the first brake release. After using the return to gate prompt they should have sent an Invalid Weights message over ACARS right away.


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


Synopsis: The clumsy attempt to get an on time departure while awaiting a maintenance release resulted in an extensive ground delay and a takeoff accomplished without the appropriate weight and balance data for an A319 flight crew.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival into ATL; we received a visual approach clearance after calling the airport 'in-sight'.  We were level at 3000 ft intercepting final approximately 8-9 miles from the runway.  I went heads down to the FMS to extend a centerline off the FAF and we both confirmed.  Meanwhile; the Captain started a descent visually using vertical speed and using outside references.  When I finished with the FMS I noticed we were in a descent around 2100 MSL and that we were low.  I queried the Captain on his altitude; stating we were low.  He corrected by clicking off the autopilot; and began a climb back up to the FAF altitude which was around 2700 ft MSL.  As he began climbing ATC issued and Altitude Alert.  We acknowledged ATC; continued climbing to a safe altitude; and continued safely to the runway.  Since we had visual contact with the airport and all terrain; safety was never compromised.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer as pilot monitoring; reports the Captain descending below the FAF altitude by 700 feet before reaching it on a visual approach. ATC issues a low altitude alert at the same time the First Officer is pointing out the deviation to the Captain.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CRQ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CRQ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After hearing our tail number and cleared for take off runway 24; we entered the runway and began our take roll.  Then Tower said Aircraft X 'Hold on'.  I aborted takeoff and turned left of the runway onto taxi way A.  Then the controller claimed that I was not cleared for take off.  The run up area had 4 aircraft including two Jets all staged for take off making for a confusing take off sequence.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of being cleared for takeoff; then having it cancelled by ATC who tells him that they weren't cleared for takeoff.