elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: System Monitor: Indicating and Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After swapping into a new aircraft; I completed the lights test; as a part of my preflight procedure. I noted that the Wheel Well Fire light; APU and engine fire handles illuminated improperly (they operated normally during the fire test). I called Maintenance to come to the aircraft. When the Mechanic arrived; I duplicated the failed test and let the Mechanic know that I had the exact same issue several weeks ago that necessitated a swap of the fire control panel. The Mechanic stated that the repair would take four hours to complete. He then said the aircraft was grounded. As we were partially boarded; we began deplaning passengers. The Mechanic then noted that MEL relief was available using 33-XX-XX. I was surprised as this remedy was not suggested in the earlier occurrence. I had the Mechanic read the MEL; as I was on the phone to Maintenance Control.The provisos of the MEL didn't seem to apply to our situation. In fact; they were exactly OPPOSITE of the indications we were experiencing. Maintenance Control stated that they had 'kicked it around' with Engineering and were of the opinion that it was a result of the dimming function of the switch and thus deferrable. I unsuccessfully tried to explain that an opinion from engineering delivered via the phone didn't supersede the approved MEL in front of me and asked to be transferred to the Chief Pilot on Call. I detailed the situation with the Chief Pilot on Call and reviewed the MEL. The Chief Pilot disagreed that it was a safety issue and that the MEL was instead poorly written and didn't fully capture the 'intent'. I declined to accept the aircraft; as I still strongly feel that the MEL was improperly assigned; and accepting the aircraft with an improperly applied MEL would result in taking an unairworthy aircraft airborne.




Synopsis: A B737-800 pilot reported they refused an aircraft for maintenance issues even though the Chief Pilot and Maintenance tried to persuade them to take the aircraft.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80; Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: VA approaches in use.  RWY 28 L/R in use.  Aircraft X requests an ILS RWY 28R approach; not familiar with PDX.  Multiple jet arrivals mixed in.  Aircraft X was cleared for approach.  About 6 or 7 miles in trail of Aircraft X was an air carrier on a visual approach to RWY 28L.  The air carrier is over 200 knots ground speed.  Aircraft X is about 90 knots over ground.  We just started working on FUSION radar about 6 days ago.  New system for us.  Totally different than single site radar.  Anyway; when Aircraft X was about over the FAF I noticed his track was tracking south.  It did this for about 4 or five updates; then he was on the RWY 28L final approach course with the air carrier right behind him with a hundred knot overtake.  The Tower was talking to Aircraft X.  I called traffic to the air carrier; called the Tower to find out what Aircraft X was doing; and about to cancel approach clearance to the air carrier when Aircraft X's target jumped back on the RY 28R final.  Over a half mile target jump.  I watched it; everything looked good and I shipped the air carrier to Tower.  This scared me.  I am going to further investigate this with QA.  I believe Aircraft X never left the RWY 28R localizer and Fusion was screwing up and not working.  I need to see a replay on actual RADAR; single site.  It was such a big target jump.  But I don't know.  Aircraft X could have drifted south of course; but to the other localizer course the back in one or two updates. We need to find out whether this was a Fusion issue or if Aircraft X actually flew what I saw.

Callback: Reporter stated Fusion radar predicts where the aircraft might be; causing this type of jump.  Single site radar showed the aircraft never left the 28R final.  About 10 seconds of false data.



Synopsis: P80 Controller describes a large jump of an aircraft on final; possibly caused by fusion radar.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; as I was climbing through 8000 ft; I had just contacted ATC and had just completed reading back the clearance. The 'CABIN DOOR' light came on. I immediately called ATC back to let them know of the issue and that I was returning to trouble shoot the problem. As I was descending; I chose to depressurize the cabin and the light immediately went out. I landed; inspected the door and contacted Dispatch. I was unable to duplicate the issue and confirmed that the locks were engaged. Dispatch informed me that there was no need to write the issue up if I could not duplicate the issue. I departed 15 minutes later and had no further issue as I proceeded with the flight. Upon arrival; maintenance asked me about the issue and I explained the events. I was then informed by Maintenance personnel that I needed to write the issue up for them to keep track of issue and to inspect the aircraft. It has been brought to my attention that I was misled by both Dispatch and Maintenance on the proper procedures for writing up the maintenance problem. Dispatch should never get involved in maintenance issues and should always direct issues to maintenance personnel. This would give pilots the correct information and not feel pressured to stay on schedule; which may lead to a compromising safety and/or FAA violations.




Synopsis: SA-227AC Captain reported that on the advice of Dispatch he failed to log a problem with a cabin door.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had a very long flight to Airport ZZZ. We had nearly full tanks of gas; took off at maximum weight and still had very little extra fuel. We flew the flight exactly as planned; but fuel numbers slowly deteriorated over the 4+ hour flight. About three hours into the flight; we determined that we would land in ZZZ with minimum reserves. We queried ATC; dispatch; and the ACARS Econ Speeds page to verify that we were flying the most fuel efficient speed and altitude. All available data at the time showed that we would arrive in ZZZ with required fuel reserves. As we started the descent to ZZZ the numbers started to deteriorate further so we declared 'minimum fuel'. ATC said there would be no delays to ZZZ and with a lack of suitable alternates at that time; we determined it would be best to continue to ZZZ since we were half way down the arrival. About 60nm from ZZZ the FMS estimated landing with less than 2000 pounds of fuel; so we asked for priority and direct to the airport. ATC accommodated our request and we landed uneventfully; but with less than reserve fuel.


Second narrative: Passenger loads should be looked at with extreme detail and caution especially with a strong winter jet stream and perhaps dispatch should assign lower cruise altitudes if the headwinds aloft are extremely strong. Extra fuel needs to be added for west bound flights especially when flying against a strong jet stream.


Synopsis: ERJ-170 flight crew reported landing at destination with less than minimum reserve fuel on their four hour plus leg.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on approach for a tight space landing between another balloon and a very small tree in a parking lot. My speed was 5mph or less. I was planning on landing close to the tree in the parking lot. On approach the basket went into the tree which caused the balloon to swing forward and I contacted the other balloon envelope with my envelope which caused my balloon to bounce off and to the east. At this point I was committed in the landing could not fly on. The balloon crossed over a brick wall and struck a house mid-level [and] slid down the wall to the ground. The suspension cables caught the roof tiles and broke a few. I tossed my crew the drop line; I heated the balloon and the crew pulled me off the house and out of the back yard into the parking lot and I deflated my balloon. No damage to either balloon or basket. Also no injuries to any person. What I believed caused the problem is a few things. Tight quarters landing. Contacting the tree and swinging forward. Fly on to a larger area to land.




Synopsis: Balloon pilot reported landing in a constrained area resulted on contact with several objects and another balloon.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: There is a large crane extended high enough for an aircraft to strike.  It does not have any flags or lights on it.  [The company] is keeping it extended all hours of the day and night.




Synopsis: Reporter states a large crane in the Fort Worth area extends high enough to be a hazard to aircraft and does not have any flags or lights on it.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Yesterday our small plane had just come out of annual. Because we were planning a trip that might involve instrument conditions; I wanted to test-fly it first. I requested VFR in the pattern; 2 rounds. I was given right upwind departure. There were about 5 other planes that the controller was working and he seemed occupied. (I had a long wait at the hold line because the controller stated that their primary radar was down). When I was [beyond] the approach end of runway; I queried the controller if I had permission to turn across the base; and he responded 'yes'. I then turned right (at pattern altitude) and was now abeam the end of the runway to my right. At this point the controller cleared me for the 'option'. Now here is the problem: I spend very little time doing pattern work and I'm not very fluent in maneuvering in the pattern if it doesn't involved a straight-forward landings. In this case; I didn't want to practice landings (that's what 'cleared for the option' meant to me!); so I continued across the base and entered a right downwind where I almost immediately saw another [aircraft] to my left and about at my altitude. He notified the controller before I had a chance and I was vectored around after I requested to land as I was quite shaken. I'm fairly sure that I've been allowed to go around in the pattern; and; although I was terrified going against the flow of traffic; I thought that I was doing what he wanted me to do. I will never do this again and when I hear the words 'cleared for the option'; I will always now know that it means 'turn toward the runway!'




Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 became confused with the instructions by ATC and turned into other traffic operating in the pattern.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Windshield Wiper System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On initial climb out in moderate turbulence at 280 kts; FO (First Officer) side windshield wiper moved halfway down the windshield into an un-parked position while the wiper switch was selected in the off/park position on both sides. The Captain contacted maintenance who guided us to MEL XX-42-1. After reviewing this MEL we followed the guidance and slowed the aircraft to 250 kts and did not exceed it for the remainder of the flight. We notified dispatch and ATC of our operational restriction and they accommodated us. MEL XX-42-1 is associated with malfunction of the windshield wipers and directs crews to restrict airspeed to 250 kts should a wiper become stuck in an un-parked position. Normal operation in the SOP makes no reference to this limitation (only lists 250 kts as an operational speed) and therefore a pilot would not know about it unless they had experienced this malfunction before. The SOP should be revised to include this limitation so crews are aware of the correct action should this malfunction happen to them in flight.




Synopsis: First Officer reported windshield wiper failed out of park position; causing a reduction in performance penalty that the crew was unaware of.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
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: We were climbing out on the departure approximately 4 miles south of FFZ climbing through 3;300.  The Student in the back right seat reported seeing a bright red circular drone about 3 feet in diameter pass approximately 50 feet below us on the right side.  I did not see it personally but we reported it to FFZ Tower with location and description.  It was a bright red in color.




Synopsis: A PA-44 crew reported a NMAC with a drone beneath PHX Class B airspace after departing FFZ.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Ground Control at the time of the incident; I just finished giving an air carrier taxiing instructions to their gate. A little after I was done giving the taxiing instructions is when I noticed that a B767 was just reaching the departure end of Runway 27 and a B737 was on landing roll on Runway 27 rolling past B7 Intersection. When I finally noticed what was happening it was too late to do anything. Traffic at the time was slow and nothing was going on. The Local Controller froze up and never said anything about what was going on; never asked for help or said this is going to be close. Nothing was said to get are attention onto what was going on. I honestly don't know what to say or recommend here. The Local Controller was just recently qualified on the position. The entire time during training the Controller struggled and was already well past the allotted training hours. The Controller was on an extension and was down to the last few hours of an extension when qualified WITHOUT a recommendation from the training team. Whenever anything gets abnormal; busy; or uncomfortable this Controller freezes up on position. This Controller is afraid to work traffic and is always trying to get out of working the position. On the day of this incident this Controller asked others to take the Local Control time scheduled. I don't believe that remedial training or classroom will have any effect on this situation. It's not a matter of if but when this is going to happen again.




Synopsis: Controller witnessed a loss of runway separation event; indicating the Local Controller froze up; failing to acknowledge the developing situation.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I operated Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1-ZZZ; we encountered the dirty sock smell on both legs. [Days later]; I operated Aircraft X again; ZZZ-ZZZ2-ZZZ encountering the dirty sock smell again descending into ZZZ2. The logbook indicated the dirty sock smell had been written up multiple times!




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported a 'dirty socks' odor on multiple flights on same aircraft.