elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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: This was the 3rd fume event in this aircraft in 4 days. Maintenance at the airplane stated they were deferring pack 1 as a result. This course of action should have been taken after the first or second event; making the 3rd an avoidable incident.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported multiple avoidable fume events on same aircraft due to incorrect maintenance trouble shooting procedure.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PHL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As instructed; we were holding short of RWY 27R on Taxiway K3. The controller issued us instructions to 'Expedite; cleared to cross 27R.' Using SOPs; I looked to my left to verify 'Clear left' and that it was safe to cross. As our aircraft crossed the Hold Short Line; the controller changed his mind and told us to 'hold short'. We told him that we were unable to comply with his new clearance because we had crossed the Hold Short Line. He then told us to continue to cross the runway. I believe that the aircraft on final approach was given go-around instructions.Although we used SOPs to verify the safety of our runway crossing; the controller changed his clearance too late.




Synopsis: After flight crew received a clearance to expedite crossing PHL Runway 27R; they were subsequently told to hold short. Unable to comply due to having already passed the hold short line; they were re-cleared to cross runway. This resulted a go-around for an aircraft on final approach to the same runway.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Dash 8 had departed Runway 8 and reported a bird strike. Airport Operations was dispatched to conduct a runway inspection. Airport Operations was instructed to proceed onto the runway after proper coordination had been accomplished; and the runway occupancy sign was lighted. Airport Operations had been on the runway for a few minutes; while operations continued on other runways. Another Dash 8 was taxiing towards Runway 8; and I noted that I had a gap between departures and arrivals; so issued a takeoff clearance. Fortunately; Airport Operations heard this; and exited the runway; reporting clear of the runway before the Dash 8 began his take off role. The lighted sign was turned on by the Tower FLM; but I did not use my usual memory jogger; which is to turn the strips face-down when a runway is occupied. I should have done this immediately upon putting the vehicle on the runway; and instead only saw the gap to launch.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a potential runway conflict when clearing an aircraft for takeoff with an airport vehicle on the runway checking for debris; the vehicle cleared on his own hearing the ATC clearance.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B787-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Customer and bag loaded out of ZZZZ to ZZZ1. The bag was in a cardboard box package. The bag did not make the original connecting flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2. The bag was expedited on a flight [the next day]. Upon receipt in ZZZ2; agent opened the bag to deliver it and contacted the customer. The agent noted the was a lithium battery in the bag.




Synopsis: A Baggage handler or Agent found a lithium battery in lost baggage.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The aircraft arrived and ramp did not have a tail stand available and was going to start downloading [the] front of aircraft and telling [the] agent [it was] okay to attach jetbridge without the tail stand being installed. I spoke to Ramp Lead and he said it was okay to attach once again. I was concerned to do this since the procedures to offload passengers [in] X rows at time leaves the tail heavy still as ramp downloads the front. As we were attaching the bridge the Flight Attendant cracked door and started to open [it]; but bridge was not attached yet [and] was about 3 feet away.




Synopsis: Ramp worker reported that a tailstand was not available to support the plane while passengers were deplaned from the front of the aircraft.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Wind; 10
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During takeoff roll Tower called wind gust of direct crosswind of 50+ knots. This was a large swing in winds from prior quartering head wind call and given the rain in the area the Captain elected to conduct a low speed abort for safety reasons rather than taking the aircraft into the air and possibly exposing the aircraft and passengers to a wind shear condition. He called the abort prior to 80 knots and retarded the throttles; I was the pilot flying; I acknowledged the call; stayed on the aircraft controls and began braking; minimal brakes were used due to low speed; length of runway and next turn off distance from aircraft. As we slowed I notified Tower of abort and transferred aircraft control to Captain. Tower did query as to reason for abort and I simply stated 'winds.' We turned off runway as directed by Tower contacted ground conducted after landing checklist; taxi checklist and before takeoff checklist. We then notified Dispatcher; contacted duty pilot and eventually contacted western regional Chief Pilot and explained abort. We were cleared to proceed by Chief Pilot and departed uneventfully. I was hearing this on the radios while turning off of runway and it did not apply to us directly so I could have missed something. After excessive gust call and/or abort call I'm pretty sure at least one aircraft elected to go around due to winds. Then as we were turning off runway there was a brief discussion between other aircraft and Tower concerning the wind call and Tower indicated wind equipment might have malfunction or given erroneous reading.




Synopsis: During takeoff; a B737 flight crew is informed of a 50 knot wind gust 90 degrees to the runway by the Tower. The Captain elects to reject the takeoff prior to the 80 knot call. During taxi back the Tower indicated wind equipment might have malfunctioned or given an erroneous reading.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on rest period was notified by Captain that the wrong database was in the FMS for the aircraft. It was [another aircraft type] load rather than a 777 load. Maintenance put the wrong database into the FMS. The aircraft flew for quite some time without crew awareness and catching the mistake. Verification steps need to be addressed. The code for the specific load is not common knowledge.

Callback: Reporter stated the database is navigation information only; no performance data changes. Further stated it is not obvious from the FMS database page what aircraft it applies to.

Second narrative: I was on duty and performed the task of updating the FMS software together with my colleague. We downloaded the latest version from the website and saved [it] to the computer desktop. We transferred it to the floppy disk and updated the FMS software on to the [B777] aircraft per [procedure] and facted out the item. I was informed later that the incorrect FMS data was uploaded on to the aircraft and the FMS data uploaded was actually for [another aircraft type]. We might have inadvertently transferred the wrong file from the desktop into the disk.Perform additional verification by having another person validate the upload. Additional coding on the data to clearly specify the designation. File names [for the two aircraft were similar]. Although they have different file names; when opened on the PC it has disk 1 and disk 2 and both contain the same data [designation] which could lead to possible transfer error or overlooked if downloaded simultaneously into the desktop.


Synopsis: B777 First Officer Relief Pilot reported the aircraft was operated for 'quite some time' with an FMS Navigation database installed that was for another aircraft type. Maintenance Technician responsible for the data load suggested improvements to prevent a future occurrence.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Second aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
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 in LGA we were given taxi instructions to the ramp. We were not given any hold short instructions. Taking the turn onto taxiway L; I had to stop suddenly to prevent a collision with an [air carrier] aircraft on taxiway A. The [other] aircraft also had to stop quickly. The [other] Captain then waved us on (they did not have room to clear our aircraft; but we did have the space to continue our turn safely).I did not hear ground issue any hold short instructions for us. I am fairly certain we did not miss any calls but I do not know if [the other aircraft] was supposed to hold short; or if the ground controller did not anticipate the conflict.We came far too close for my comfort to striking each other. When stopped we had plenty of physical separation; but if both crews had not stopped; then there would have been a collision. Given the right hand turn we were making; it was almost luck we saw them in time.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported a near-collision with an Airbus while taxiing at LGA airport.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PUB.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: On approach to land on Runway 8L into PUB; I noticed that the PAPI read high and then transitioned directly to both lights on the right and the one on the far left changed to red while the second from the left stayed white. I made multiple approaches to the runway and the results were the same on every approach.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported the PAPI was not working properly at PUB airport.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Landing; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On flight ABCD from ZZZ to ZZZ1 while boarding passenger seated in seat XX1 came on that aircraft with his mask below his nose and between his lips. I told that passenger his mask must come over his nose and mouth. He responded 'He will try.' I then offered him a company approved surgical mask that were provided by the company. He responded 'No thanks.' That was the first time of me asking him to put his mask on properly. During my compliant check before doing the safety demo; the mask was down again. I told him once again about the mask. That was the second time. During cabin service the mask was down again and I had to remind him once more. Once cabin service was over and passengers were given time to eat and drink; I then went around to collect trash and he was asleep with his mask down. I called out to him and he opened his eyes and I told him for the third time about his mask. Once we got to the final descent his mask was down and I reminded him once again for the fourth time. Once I told him this time he just looked at me and shook his head. This passenger (XX1) and his wife seated in XX2 were both sick. They were both coughing without covering their cough.The couple kept coughing during takeoff; throughout the flight and landing. The coughing drew the attention of other passengers to look. People are very scared and when they hear coughing and other passengers [are] not wearing mask properly they worry. Many verbal warnings were given.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that a passenger had to be reminded four times to wear a face mask. Flight Attendant stated that the passenger and his wife were coughing without covering their cough.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying in a dual cross country under Part 61 training with my instructor. We were descending to 2;500 FT AGL when we experienced engine roughness and severe vibration. We contacted ATC and requested a deviation to the nearest airport. As the engine roughness increased and we were no longer able to maintain altitude we declared the emergency and decided to land in an open road beside a canal. There were no injuries or damage to people or property. We came to land safe and sound.




Synopsis: A private pilot and instructor experienced engine roughness and severe vibration. As they began to deviate to the nearest airport; the conditions worsened; so they performed a successful precautionary landing on a road.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other all
Operating under: Other all
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other all
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Weather was moving through the airspace. Two sectors were combined feeding me at the Finals Sector working staggered finals. The Center was feeding arrival aircraft all over the place that should have been put on a different arrival route. The Sector feeding me was overloaded with deviating aircraft; and this resulted in a wildly out of control and unsafe operation.We tried to get the final into simultaneous approaches and split of the finals Sector. The feeder's aircraft were coming in from the southeast in an absolutely unsafe feed from the Center which resulted in a possible loss of separation on final between a straight in and an aircraft from the southeast.Better communication between the supervisor and traffic management was needed. The Traffic Management Unit (TMU) Supervisor dropped the ball and allowed an unsafe situation to occur. TMU should have been paying attention to our operation and put the Center on a different arrival route. Supervisors should have put the Center in holding when this didn't happen.




Synopsis: PCT TRACON Controller reported combined sectors and lack of Traffic Management initiatives during a busy period with weather deviations created an unsafe operation.