elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU; TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were filed on the SKNRD4 into IAH. Clearance routed us on the ZEEKK1 arrival. Enroute we were recleared back to the SKNRD4 arrival. Houston center then re-cleared us onto the ZEEKK1 arrival again; then to the DOOBI2 arrival. Prior to being switched to IAH approach were cleared to descend via DOOBI2 arrival. We set the bottom altitude of 8;000 ft and began the descent. We checked in with IAH approach and let them know we were descending via the DOOBI2. They acknowledged our check on and told us to expect runway 8L. We queried approach control on the runway assignment again because the DOOBI2 is usually used when IAH is landing in a west flow. Approach confirmed runway 8L and said we should be on the SKNRD4 arrival. We were given a heading and a descent to 10;000 ft. Both the DOOBI2 and SKNRD4 share waypoints but they have different altitudes. To the best of my knowledge no vertical or lateral separation occurred. The frequent changing of arrivals was confusing to the flight crew as well as may have confused or led to a breakdown in communications between IAH center and approach controllers. Less clearance changes may help this event from recurring.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported confusion in the cockpit resulted when Houston Center and TRACON changed their arrival assignment multiple times.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Line; Fittings; & Connectors
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through 2;000 FT I smelled a strong solvent odor in cockpit. Fuel was dripping quickly from behind copilot panel onto floor (and copilot's feet). Immediately turned back toward my departure airport; contacted Tower (had been handed off from Tower to TRACON Approach - switched back to Tower without contacting TRACON); and informed them that we were returning due to a fuel leak. Declared emergency and prepared our fire extinguisher in case fuel ignited. Landed uneventfully; rolled off runway; and shut everything down. Fuel leak was due to a hole in the fuel line to the fuel pressure gauge. This pressurized fuel line passes through the firewall to the gauge in the panel. A much safer design would be to mount a transducer on the engine side of the firewall - apparently that is done on later models of the same plane. We will investigate retrofitting that type of gauge.




Synopsis: An older model M20 developed a fuel leak in the fuel pressure sense line behind the copilot side instrument panel; so the pilot declared an emergency returned to the airport he had just departed.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The taxiway centerline markings on ORD Taxiway K; K3 and A9 are worn off.  The line is almost gone in a number of locations.  At night using a 737 taxi light; it's very hard to see where you are going.  This area is away from the large bright lights of the terminal; and is a mass of darkness with a lot of blue lights.  It's even worse on a night when it is raining.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the centerline markings on several taxiways at ORD Airport are worn and difficult to see at night.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ1
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Two different drone operations from one company at the ZZZ airport were (once again) a problem. [They were] far too close to operating aircraft in the pattern at this airport. This particular event was the result of having to go around on very short final due to an airplane entering the runway directly ahead of our airplane. I asked my student what his plan was and he correctly advised and performed a go-around. I asked how he was to execute this maneuver with another Cessna rolling on takeoff almost under us. Once again; a proper reply was to offset to an upwind leg climb out and announce our intentions on CTAF. The problem (once again) is the drone (UAS) people feel it safe to operate directly in any and all airspace at the ZZZ airport; causing an unsafe environment for this far too busy airport. There's plenty of unused parking lots for drones to operate (away from airports); and I feel it just a matter of time before there will be a HUGE problem with a very likely collision or incident of trying to avoid these UAS operators. The FBO I work for at this facility is a non-pilot [and not a] flight instructor; and has no idea how unsafe an act this UAS operation causes. All of my concerns and reports to ZZZ1 ATC have resulted in no action what so ever. Hopefully; I won't need to make further reports; but rest assured that doing nothing will likely not end well with this UAS operation at ZZZ.




Synopsis: CFI reported UAV conflict in the traffic pattern area.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS; Tower BOS
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 22L we exited the runway via Taxiway P; E and held short of Runway 22R at E. We were talking to Tower on Frequency 128.80. Tower advised to cross Runway 22R on E and contact ground on Frequency 121.9 once crossed. The Captain taxied across Runway 22R and I was contacting ground on 121.90 when we realized there was an Air Carrier Y coming strait at us on Taxiway E. The Captain stopped immediately and I tried to contact ground. Ground Control was very busy and I was unable to get a response from him. I continued to try and contact ground by saying something along the lines of ground Air Carrier X I think our tail is still across the hold short line on Runway 22R and that there was an aircraft coming strait at us from Taxiway E. I believe ground still did not respond. By this time the Air Carrier Y was about 50 feet in front of us and still coming. I said to the Captain; 'he's going to hit us.' The Captain then turned on every light we had so as to have the Air Carrier Y stop. I yelled on the radio multiple times to 'stop!' The Air Carrier Y kept coming. Ground still did not respond. I then again said the Air Carrier Y in front of us stop you are going to hit us. A voice came on and said; 'I can see my wing I'm fine; I'm not going to hit you;' I said 'yes you are; STOP!' The Air Carrier Y kept coming slower; but turned to cut the corner of Taxiway E and B; exactly where we were sitting. By the time the Air Carrier Y went past us; it's front tires were about 5 feet left of the taxiway line (cutting the inside of the corner) I would calculate the winglet of the Air Carrier Y was about 5 feet from our front windshield. My Captain kept the lights on the whole time and never moved the airplane; if he would have moved there would have been a collision. Once the Air Carrier Y passed I was finally able to get taxi confirmation from ground to continue to the gate.I believe the event occurred because the pilot of the Air Carrier Y was arrogant. This is most prevalent in my mind because of the tone of voice that was given when he said; he would not hit us. Also Ground not realizing that Tower had cleared us to cross and contact Ground Control. This is a hotspot on the airport.Suggestions: Ground and Tower to have better communication between each other. More vigilance from pilots to not continue when another pilot advises to stop.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing a ground conflict during taxi-in at BOS airport.
Date: 202011
Location: LSE.Airport, WI
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Tower LSE
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were cleared for the RNAV 18 from Tower we were told to report the FAF. At this point we were roughly on a 13 or so mile final. I hear Tower talking to another aircraft that was VFR wanting to practice approaches and also shoot the RNAV 18. Tower then told this aircraft to also report the FAF and advised them there is a Warrior on a 9 or 10 mile final and to look for us. The pilot responded that he does not have us in sight yet. I advised Tower that we are still in fact farther away than 9 miles. We had a strong headwind so our ground speed was pretty slow. Tower said we were still cleared for the option and to still report the FAF at this point we were at the fix half way between the FAF and the IAF. Tower again advised the other traffic that we were an 8 or less mile final and to report and he has us in sight. The Cessna still responded he didn't have us in sight so Tower told them to do a right 360. I then reported that we are .5 away from the FAF. At this point I got a traffic notification and I looked up [to see] the Cessna is at the same altitude off my right nose and passed right in front of me at the same altitude. I then took the controls; banked right and pushed the nose forward. The other pilot [said] 'holy crap I see them now' and I let Tower know we were going off course and low. Tower didn't seem like they were paying attention. Or seem to ask about it. We then continued on with the approach and went missed and Tower didn't ask us about it. When I reported going missed we didn't hear back from Tower till after several calls.




Synopsis: Piper Warrior instructor pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft on final approach at LSE.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departure from taking off at ZZZ below 1;000 feet the Captain called both of flight attendants asking us if we smelled fumes or felt anything and we did not in the main cabin. He said he smelt it very strong in the cockpit. About 10 minutes went by and the Captain called us again; told us they were smelling it again and stated they were going to have to [request ATC assistance] because the dirty sock smell was very strong in the cockpit. Before we landed in ZZZ1 we prepared the cabin for [landing]. Made sure everybody was seated; safe and their seatbelt was on; checked the lavatories insuring there was nobody inside. The Fire Marshall met us at the gate in ZZZ1 and that is when the oil smell started to smell inside the main cabin. The Fire Marshall came onboard then we deplaned everybody.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported Captain notified cabin crew of fumes in the cockpit.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CXW.Airport, AR
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Observer
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The city of Conway; Arkansas has a new municipal airport (CXW - Cantrell FLD).  This airport is not depicted on the Memphis sectional (dated 18 SEP 2014 to 2 APR 2015). The airport is listed in the Airport/Facility Directory South Central U.S. The old city airport (CWS - Dennis F Cantrell FLD) is still being used and is depicted on the Memphis Sectional and A/F Directory. When conducting a NOTAM search using DINS after typing in CWS the search returns that there are 'no' NOTAM's for this location. A search of CXW only returns OBST Tower information for the new airport. Both airports have the same name which could cause confusion during radio communications. Pilots operating in the area of the city of Conway may not be aware that there is a new airport that is not depicted on the sectional and that a CWS NOTAM search does not address the new airport. Recommend that the airport manager create a NOTAM effective immediately for both airports explaining that the new airport is not depicted on sectional and to reference A/F Directory for correct frequencies and airport names.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reports that Conway AR has a new airport designated CXW and an old airport designated CWS and both are named Cantrell Field; but CXW is not on the sectional and Notam's are not available for CWX.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we taxied to the active runway that we requested from Ground Control. An intersection departure was approved. He told us to contact Tower upon reaching the hold short line at the intersection. We contacted Tower and informed him we are ready for departure. He gave us instructions to line up and wait. As we began to enter the runway I noted that another large Airbus or Boeing was also lining up at the beginning of the runway. It is not uncommon that they line two planes up on the same runway at the same time. Usually when one is on a takeoff roll and the second plane in sequence is asked to line up after the takeoff roll begins of the plane on the runway. Before we were fully lined up I gave another look at the aircraft at the beginning of the runway and noted it had started its takeoff roll as we were given take off clearance by the Tower and began our takeoff roll. I advised the pilot flying to hurry I think that plane is taking off.At this point the aircraft at the beginning of the runway had aborted its take off and advised Tower he aborted due to another aircraft on the runway. The Tower seemed very confused at this point as to who was taking off and what was going on. We were already airborne when the Tower again said to us we are cleared for takeoff. I responded we have already taken off. I told him you already gave us takeoff clearance. We continued out the on the SID and changed frequencies to Departure Control.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: International Tower issued duplicate takeoff clearances to two aircraft on the same runway with one at the beginning of the runway and the other on an intersection departure.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ARR.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ARR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other On  Internet
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Only learned about it listening to archives on [the internet.]   FLM was signed on to both Local Control and CIC.  Numerous times the FLM LUAW aircraft; which is not allowed under regulations.  The Local Controller can only use LUAW procedures when they are not also assigned to any other position.  The position needs to stand alone.  Due to low staffing levels; only Developmental was in the cab during the incident. Refresher training for the FLM and all the trainees at the facility.  Any of the trainees watching might think this is an accepted practice.




Synopsis: ARR Tower Controller reports of a FLM that is having aircraft line up and wait [LUAW] while working Local Control combined.  This is against FAA policy.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm; 10
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As I was returning home from flying [aerial survey] I had no issues or weather to avoid. Once I was about 25 miles East of ZZZ I attempted to go around some thunderstorms and work my way into ZZZ. I experienced some turbulence and decided to turn back to ZZZ1. During this time I realized that I could not pitch the nose forward and my elevator seemed unresponsive to my control inputs. I ended up being able to pull the yoke back and pitch up but not able to do the opposite. I was able to control the aircraft using power settings and trim to divert to ZZZ1 and land safely. As maintenance is being done it has been discovered that the battery was not latched in place and thus fell onto the elevator control wire; burning it in half. The rudder control was close to also being burned through. I believe this could have been a much worse situation. I also believe the company I work for does not do adequate maintenance on their aircraft.




Synopsis: Cessna 177 pilot reported that the battery came loose and burned through the elevator cable.