elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the takeoff roll; after calling out 'thrust set'; I scanned the EICAS engine indications; and then I fixated on the altimeter confusing it for the airspeed indicator. When the numbers on the altimeter dial did not increase during the takeoff roll I mistakenly believed it was a stuck airspeed indication and called for an aborted takeoff. The captain aborted the takeoff and we taxied in to a location where we could talk to maintenance. As I was explaining to the Captain what I had seen I realized my mistake; I had confused the Altimeter indication for the Airspeed. There were no problems with the aircraft and we completed the flight safely.


Second narrative: As we discussed the problem the first officer realized that he had become fixated on the altimeter not the airspeed indicator and there was not actually a problem with the airspeed indicator. Once we had established that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft we continued the flight normally.


Synopsis: During the takeoff roll an EMB-145 First Officer call for a reject after scanning his instruments and interpreting the 0 altimeter indication as an airspeed indicator failure.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise; I noticed that a very small piece of paper was sticking out of the Parking Brake Indication Switch. I pulled the switch out to find that it was being held by multiple ripped pieces of paper. I removed the papers and placed the switch back in the slot. Wrote up the now INOP switch in the maintenance log and advised maintenance in ZZZ of my findings. This; unfortunately; has been a common practice when these types of switches go INOP. This constitutes a risk to safety due to the fact that you are placing shreds of papers (combustible) close to an electrical connector.




Synopsis: B767-200 flight crew found parking brake indication switch held in place with shredded paper.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending for an arrival into a non towered airport. I had elected to vector Aircraft X north of the IAF for a straight in approach. Aircraft X descended with the terrain as instructed until entering a 13;000 ft. MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) box. At that point Aircraft X was cleared direct the IAF. After Aircraft X was cleared direct the IAF; I cleared the aircraft to cross the initial approach fix at or above 13;000 ft. for the straight in RNAV Approach. The Pilot read back the clearance and left out the straight in command. I restated the straight in portion of the clearance to the Pilot and he read back the straight in portion of the clearance correctly.I attended to a few other duties before switching the aircraft to CTAF. As I returned to switch Aircraft X to the CTAF I noticed the aircraft had descended below 13;000 ft. to 11;800 ft. I restated the clearance to verify that the Pilot was to cross the IAF at 13;000 ft.; then issued a low altitude alert for the area MIA the Pilot was in. At that point the Pilot was in the lowest MIA in that area of 12;000 ft. The aircraft had descended to 11;200 ft. before I read the low altitude alert because it took me a few seconds to bring up my MIA chart and verify that he wasn't on the approach already as well as in the 12;000 ft. MIA box. When advising the aircraft of the low altitude alert the Pilot responded that they were currently on a visual approach. I verified with the Pilot of Aircraft X that the airport was in sight. The pilot confirmed airport in sight; and that is when I cleared the Pilot for the visual approach. I advised my Supervisor of the incident immediately after the visual approach clearance was given.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported an aircraft descended below its assigned altitude and below the Minimim IFR Altitude.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: In ZZZ airport; we have employees testing positive for COVID-19; but yet the process of notification (notifying the crew) is very subjective. There are technicians; which have tested positive. The company has only notified a selective few to quarantine.There are technicians who have tested positive and have contaminated the rest of the crew. Some have been forced to take their own sick time because the company refuses to acknowledge they have been exposed at work. The exposure happened at work because they were all in the same room and worked together. The company says they have followed CDC guidelines; but how can that be when more technicians are testing positive at work. Let's have guys who were at work quarantine and have the company notify the work areas that maybe have been exposed.




Synopsis: Technician reported concerns with company procedures related to notification of possible exposure to other employees who have tested positive for COVID-19.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I19.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E CMH
ATC / advisory: CTAF I19
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent for landing at I19; at approximately 2500 ft MSL over populated area; I observed a small black dot at my same altitude; and 1 o'clock from my position. I banked slight left to avoid the object. As I passed the object; I observed what appeared to be a stationary drone of the hobby store variety. I felt this to be a very dangerous activity on the part of the drone operator that could easily have ended in loss of life or severe damage to the aircraft if I had not seen it in time to maneuver away.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported a NMAC with a UAV on approach to I19.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight; I was given a printed copy of a Notification to Captain (NOTOC) by ground personal. During the conversation; the ramper asked if I was going to refuse the lithium battery shipment. Immediately; I was on guard and asked if the shipment was cargo or company material. The ramper indicated that the shipment was company material. After a conference call with Dispatch and Cargo; it was determined we could not tell if the total battery load was below the limits that cargo relayed during the call. The cargo was unloaded. After the offload; I saw the cargo was a shipment of custom electric bikes. The total stated battery load was beyond the 5 KG of load in FOM I. FOM I doesn't address a maximum limit on battery load in combination. The unknown combined limit of all the packages exceeded the total 5 KG limit talked about FOM I. FOM I doesn't state a total limit on batteries; yet the next pages in the FOM talk directly about battery limits on checked baggage.Even FOM I states the company ignores the responsibility of battery weight by assuming the package is less than 5 KG of battery weight. The shipper has no responsibility by law to declare any battery size or capacity. We assume the shipper is being truthful on the declaration of the battery mass with no respect to the battery power or potential hazard due to its energy content. Electric bikes can in fact contain a battery more than 150% of any limit imposed on checked baggage. The battery capacity of bikes was determined in hindsight. With the information that was present in the conference call the decision was made to remove the shipment. After my limited research; I feel it is important to address this concern for future events. Suggestion: Publish a total [Max Allowed] limit of battery load. If there is none say so. I will error on the side of saying no...now prove me wrong.




Synopsis: First Officer reported refusal of Dangerous Goods shipment due to undefined cargo load weight on board; additionally; FOM does not provide clearly stated weight limitations.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BET.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BET
ATC / advisory: Tower BET
Second aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was instructed by Bethel Tower to enter a right downwind for [Runway] 19R and report midfield. I heard another aircraft call up after me and at the time I believed that I heard he was inbound from the southeast and I was inbound from the west-southwest. As I was coming up on midfield downwind Aircraft Y called in 'midfield downwind; traffic that I'm passing in sight.' Tower then responds that he is cleared to land [Runway] 19R and told him to keep his base tight because he was number 1 inside the aircraft he was passing. After Aircraft Y repeated his clearance back to Tower; Tower then asked me if I had a visual on the aircraft passing me and that I was number two and cleared to land. I then looked over to see Aircraft Y passing inside of me maybe 100 ft. off my right side and maybe 50 ft. lower than me. I responded that he was in sight and that I was number two. I then slowed down my aircraft because at this point we were abeam the threshold. I believe that Tower should have advised me of the other aircraft before he was that close to me. I also believe that Tower should have sequenced the two landing aircrafts long before it got to the point where the other aircraft was passing me at midfield on the downwind. They should not have allowed Aircraft Y to pass me without any direction to either aircraft about the situation.




Synopsis: C207 Captain reported ATC failed to alert them of traffic on downwind; resulting in a NMAC.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While removing leftover bags from Aircraft X; I observed a smart bag with its lithium battery yet intact. Bag had an attached priority flag.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported smart bag transported with lithium ion battery intact in violation of FAR and company policy that requires batteries be removed.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying the ILS Runaway 06 into ZZZ. The approach was uneventful until landing gear extension. Upon selecting landing gear down; we received an amber HYD PTU failure CAS message. Then we received a RED GEAR CAS message along with a GEAR Voice message. We then noticed that only the nose gear was indicating down and locked with both main landing gear indicator cross-hatched (Indicating Gear unsafe). At this point; a go-around was started at approximately a 2-mile final. We were instructed to execute the published missed approach procedure. The landing gear and flaps retracted normally and the warning horn and previous CAS messages went away. After getting handed off to Approach Control; I requested delay vectors and an altitude assignment as opposed to doing the published hold. Once level; the only remaining CAS message was a cyan 'L ENG HYD PUMP FAIL'. We then elected to do the emergency gear extension checklist. What prompted us to that checklist was the previous RED GEAR CAS message. That checklist calls for the landing gear handle switch to be selected down. All three landing gear extended normally; with three green indicator lights. We elected to keep the gear down for the remainder of the flight. Since we were having a problem with the left side hydraulic system; which controls the gear extension and nose wheel steering; we were concerned about taxiing off the runway after landing rollout. I then contacted Tower and told them we were eventually going to be coming back in for another landing attempt; but there was a possibility we would not have full nose-wheel steering and may have to be towed off the runway. We set up the approach and ran the checklist for Approach and Before Landing. The fight concluded with a normal landing along with full nose wheel steering ability. Once we were parked; I pulled up the Hydraulic-system schematic on the MFD. The left side hydraulic system reservoir showed 0 percent quantity remaining.




Synopsis: CL30 First Officer reported that an emergency gear extension procedure was used due to a hydraulic pump failure. Landing and taxi were uneventful.
Date: 201807
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We originally had a tail swap due to return to the gate from a maintenance issue on original aircraft. Upon return to gate we were around LAS for a long length of time before we were tail-swapped to this aircraft. I accepted a 2-hour extension as a result. As boarding I calculated my FDP (Flight Duty Period) and flight time limitation. I contacted Scheduling and we both had matching numbers of having to be airborne by XA:07 local LAS time. We finished boarding and pushed off the gate no issue taking off by XA:03 local time. Enroute no issues occurred until reaching the HVQ VOR on arrival. We were given a hold over the VOR with a clearance time of 30 minutes. Entering the hold we weren't even done a quarter of a turn before ATC cleared us to north heading and was going to be brought in on another arrival into IAD. Upon reaching the initial fix they turned us back to our original filed arrival. I asked ATC if people were getting in and they said no problem from this arrival (the one we were originally on). We landed and taxied to the gate causing me to exceed my FDP by 7 minutes with the 2 hour extension.




Synopsis: First Officer of a part 121 passenger aircraft reported exceeding FAR flight time limits.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot flying with autopilot OFF departing ZZZ for SJC. At 'about' 3;000 FT in the westbound turn on the RNAV departure both digital flight guidance computers (DFGC) kicked off leaving me with blank FMA; no autothrottle or autopilot if I wanted it; no CDI; no altitude pre-select/alerted and a few other items. I said I was unable RNAV departure and need a heading. After a bit of trouble shooting with no luck; we were unable to restore the DFGC's it was decided to return to departure airport. An emergency was declared and we received heading and altitudes back to ZZZ in VMC. After a smooth landing we taxied back to the gate and switched airplanes.


Second narrative: Rather than try to fly with the conditions for more than 2 hours to use up enough fuel to be under max landing weight; I decided to declare an emergency; and return immediately to ZZZ and land overweight. We were vectored by ATC back to ZZZ for a visual approach. We made a normal approach to a very soft touchdown; slowed using normal braking procedures; exited the runway and taxied to the gate without incident. Maintenance then came aboard and found what they said were multiple failures in the maintenance check functions and took the plane out of service.


Synopsis: Air Carrier on initial climb experienced a digital flight guidance failure on both systems resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: R90.TRACON, NE
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X was holding at 3;000 ft. several miles northeast of a 4;000 ft. MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). Aircraft X requested to proceed to a fix to begin an RNAV approach. The vector 170 was issued to keep Aircraft X from entering the 4;000 ft. MVA.  Shortly afterwards; there was a minor unrelated occurrence that required some coordination with an adjacent facility. I allowed my attention to be diverted momentarily; and when I looked back at Aircraft X; I noticed he had just slightly clipped the 4;000 ft. MVA while still at 3;000 ft. I do NOT believe this was any kind of pilot error; I suspect it was due to wind or the pilot turning slower than expected; or perhaps I should have initially issued a wider turn to keep clear of the 4;000 ft. MVA. The pilot exited the corner of the MVA shortly afterwards and did not report any issue. I should have stayed more vigilant; and possibly issued a wider initial vector to ensure against wind or slower than expected turns.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported they issued an insufficient vector to an aircraft to avoid a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude area.