elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As the pandemic is surging to record levels again; I feel compelled to highlight an ongoing and now seemingly institutionally entrenched intentional violation of basic company safety policy regarding mask wear in the ZZZ base pilot lounge.  According to the policy letter from management; employees are required to wear face coverings in crew bases whenever not actively eating; drinking; or taking medicine.  This does not occur with the vast majority of employees I observe regularly regardless of time of day; number of occupants; lack or not of social distancing; and is an ongoing situation.  I have even heard some say they spend more time in the lounge these days in order to avoid the gate/terminal areas where other work group members might express the need for compliance.  The ZZZ base pilot lounge is seen by nearly everyone as a 'safe space' to willfully flaunt company face covering policy and could easily end up being a major source of COVID-19 transmission; resulting in increased sick calls; company health expenses; or even employee deaths.This starts at the top.  I can't speak about other bases; but there is no messaging; signage; or even leadership by good example by base leadership for this simplest and most effective of pandemic mitigations.  If company policy is meant to actually have a positive effect and not be simply lip service; leadership needs to inform and demand compliance and show leadership by demonstrating compliance.  This needs to be standard across ALL employee work spaces and leadership must be held accountable.  I refuse to spend any more time than absolutely necessary in my company workspace of the pilot lounge because it jeopardizes my health and that of my co-workers and family.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported that many employees in the pilot lounge do not comply with company face mask policy.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On approach conditions were favorable for windshear and were flying about REF plus 5 to 10 KTS; and had briefed for windshear. Turbulence was light and little crab was necessary to maintain alignment. At about 100 AGL hit a little bit of chop but speed did not go below REF. Entered ground effect and with engines spooling down and was expecting to hear the 50; 40; 30; 20; 10; call; but instead got a windshear warning. [We were] considering energy state of aircraft and proximity to runway; and in a good position to land normally. Judgment was made to continue to land. I felt that it was safer to land than to go around at this point of the landing. If same events were to happen maybe 10 to 15 seconds prior I would have executed the windshear escape maneuver.


Second narrative: The Captain briefed the approach per the Company Policy and I prepared for the approach as instructed. The Captain also briefed for possible windshear. We discussed recognition and recovery in the event of the windshear. During the approach we expected light turbulence but we encountered very little turbulence. At no time did the IAS drop below Vref. During the flare we received a wind shear warning. The Captain stated 'landing' and I confirmed. The landing was normal and without incident. We taxied to the gate as normal without incident. I don't have any recommendations relating to this event. The fact that I am a former Captain myself; I would not have done anything differently.


Synopsis: A CRJ90 Captain continued to a normal landing after the WINDSHEAR WARNING alerted while the aircraft was beginning the landing flare at 100 FT.
Date: 201509
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushed off the gate; Captain decided to taxi on one engine from gate to 1R. We started #2. Captain forgot to call for flaps on after start check; and there is no line item in the after start check to verify flaps; so if I hadn't caught this misstep it wouldn't have been caught until even later. Why has setting the flaps been removed [from] the checklist?Before moving; with the #2 engine running; in order to help decrease workload; and allow for me to be heads up during taxiing; the Captain called for the before takeoff check to the line. I announced 'before takeoff check to the line' and ran the check to the line. We taxied out; he called for delayed engine start. I completed this and ran the delayed engine start checklist. We then waited our turn in line and departed without either of us catching that we failed to do the 'final items'. We realized this when the Captain ran the after takeoff check and the igniters were off.




Synopsis: B737 FO reported flight took off without completing the final items on the before takeoff checklist.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SWO.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SWO
ATC / advisory: Tower SWO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The student and I had taken off of Runway 17 and at 1;500 feet MSL turned on course to the practice area on a heading of about 230. At this point; I had the student put on their foggles to start their simulated instrument time. Tower informed us that there was an aircraft about 6 miles to the South of the airport which was going in our general direction; their path was South to North. I acknowledged the call and told Tower we would keep a lookout for the traffic. The student asked about something on the instrument panels so I looked inside to answer their question. I heard the other aircraft radio that they had us insight. Since I had not yet gotten them in sight; I hoped to now be able to since they had. I looked back outside in the general direction that the airplane was supposed to be at (right side) and saw the airplane in a steep bank at approximately 400 feet from us with no vertical difference. As soon as I saw them; I banked the airplane to the right and kept our climb pitch attitude. I reported to Tower that I had the aircraft in sight.The conditions that caused the problem were: my heads-down time answering the student's question; not having Tower get a distance from the traffic; and not being able to locate them sooner.Actions to prevent/correct the situation: do not have my head down to answer a student's question; have Tower get a distance from the traffic.




Synopsis: GA instructor pilot reported an NMAC during departure from SWO airport requiring an evasive maneuver.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The cabin altitude red crew alerting system message activated after cabin altimeter exceeded 10;000 FT. I noted that the temperature controller had also failed. I noted a strange bump when takeoff power was applied on departure. Crew executed proper checklist procedure; and diverted to the nearest suitable airport.




Synopsis: The crew became aware of a pressurization problem when the warning message appeared; indicating that the cabin altitude was above 10;000 FT. They performed the checklist procedure and diverted to a suitable airport.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The 10-9; 10-9B; and the sign entering the ramp in BNA all say to monitor frequency 122.95 for ramp advisories. Our station procedures instructions state that the Nashville Ops frequency must be monitored for all ramp movement. Which is the correct frequency to monitor? We can't monitor both since we must also be on the Ground frequency; especially for taxiing out when we are in the alleyway.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a conflict between ramp signage and the airport diagram concerning the correct frequency for ramp movement at BNA.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I called ground control from the hangars and requested taxi. The controller gave me taxi to runway 3L via Alpha; cross 34 and hold short of 3L and advise run-up complete. I acknowledged the clearance and began my taxi. While approaching 34; I turned all of my lights on for safety; looked both ways down runway 34 to make sure it was clear; and began to cross the runway. Upon exiting; I observed a Cessna turn right in front of me; causing me to slam on the brakes very hard to avoid a collision of my nose into his tail. I then immediately notified Ground that I didn't expect to see a Cessna in front of me. The controller said; 'I'm sorry.' The rest of the flight went fine.I was 5 feet or less from the Cessna; and barely avoided a collision. The Cessna was on taxiway B headed to the same runway. The Cessna pilots never saw me. This was a hotspot on the taxi diagram. I believe the controller lost situation awareness. I've also observed that sometimes the controllers at this airport don't give you instructions to cross runway 34 or hold short; but they've gotten a lot better. If they don't tell me what to do; I hold short until I get a verbal; 'cleared to cross'. Next time I fly out of this airport; and given the same clearance; I'll make sure taxiway Bravo is cleared as well as runway 34 before I begin my crossing.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a near collision at a known Hotspot at Dekalb-Peachtree Airport.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Told to descend by ATC; checked TCAS and noticed an aircraft climbing into that altitude. Fl320 to Fl300. Pilot Flying CAPTAIN; asked to query ATC on traffic/altitude by Pilot Not Flying First Officer. During query a TCAS RA was issued and complied with both our aircraft and an Airbus flight opposite direction; they descended and we climbed. Multiple aircraft and ATC communications followed but still conflicted with TCAS RA. Aircraft were in close proximity but remained in visual separation while complying with TCAS instructions. ATC finally issued a higher altitude for us after event at FL 340. Late instructions; conflicting resolutions (ATC; pilot; TCAS) and communication failure/ similar call signs all were threats in a time compressed manner. Could be possible that ATC confused which aircraft was which and issued opposite instructions than intended.... No further conflicts arose and we continued to destination.Communication was the largest threat. Although not ideal; Captain Pilot Flying; could have communicated directly to ATC about possible conflict decreasing time to action; both with ATC instructions and resolutions.




Synopsis: When ATC cleared an EMB-145 flight crew to an altitude already inhabited by another aircraft; a TCAS RA was received and complied with in a timely fashion.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SGS.Airport, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G SGS
Reporter function: Observer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Witnessed male operating UAV up to estimated 500 feet AGL in area of traffic pattern of SGS. Operator was frequently out of line of sight of UAV and was operating while talking on cell phone. Aircraft were using pattern at time.




Synopsis: A private pilot observed a UAV pilot operating his drone in the vicinity of SGS airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing we noticed unusual sounds coming from the engine.   After examining the engine gauges we noticed the torque on the number 1 engine was over 125% and the RPM was approximately 400.  After we concluded that the aircraft had a number 1 engine unscheduled feather we preformed the appropriate checklist and shut down the number engine.  After handling the checklist I talked to the Flight Attendant and ATC.  The Captain continued to fly the plane while I ran the remainder of the Single Engine checklist.  After landing we had the fire department inspect the number one engine before taxing back to the gate.  After deplaning the passenger the Captain then called Dispatch.




Synopsis: After takeoff a DHC-8-100 number one engine autofeathered so with the appropriate checklist the crew shut the engine down and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Noise Suppression
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had two rejected takeoffs on the same airplane; same flight number. Both on Runway XL in ZZZ after setting takeoff thrust (So both times happened under 40 kts). The first time we had an EICAS caution 'ENG 2 REV DISAGREE' so we aborted; told ATC and taxied off of the runway and stopped on a taxiway. The message disappeared right after we went back to idle before exiting the runway. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and we came to the agreement to return back to the gate to MEL the Number 2 Thrust Reverser and followed company procedures. We tried a second time; again Runway XL and after setting takeoff thrust we now had a 'ENG 1 REV DISAGREE' caution. We Followed Company procedures again and returned to the gate for the second time. The flight was cancelled.Both messages were detected right after setting takeoff thrust on takeoff roll. Both times under 40 kts.ENG 2 REV DISAGREE caution on the first takeoff attempt and an ENG 1 REV DISAGREE on the second attempt.Rejected both takeoffs and returned to the gate twice after following company procedures.Keep Maintenance working on fixing the issue since this same problem happened to someone else on the same aircraft a few days before it happened to us.




Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported that a recurring engine problem resulted in two aborted takeoffs and a flight cancellation.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; Taxi; Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Ever since we began wearing masks I am fearful of my job. I am getting headaches and at times migraines. When I get a headache; I am cranky so not always nice to passengers. I cannot communicate properly with my [coworkers]; my customers; the agents; etc. In an evacuation; how are we to hear one another? We are in a metal tube with little oxygen already. What our company is spraying on the aircraft can be damaging to the human body.Neurologically speaking and hard to pinpoint.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported experiencing health issues since the wearing of a face mask began and the use of sanitizing spray in the aircraft.
Date: 201906
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Pushback
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushback [tractor] operator failed to properly secure towbar to aircraft and did not install by-pass pin before pushing. As push commenced; operator saw towbar not seated properly and stopped push; causing bar and nose gear to separate. Pilot advised to set brakes and stopped aircraft from short roll. Push speed was very slow at the time of incident.




Synopsis: Pushback tractor operator reported failing to follow proper procedure during pushback of aircraft.