elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The reason for this report is to highlight my concern about personnel who are not active working crew members on a flight (Jumpseater's); who take it upon themselves to arm and disarm aircraft doors. This is the second time I have personally had this situation happen; I have also witnessed it happening to fellow working crew members.My intent in writing this letter is to bring to the attention of the company and the FAA; an action that should be discouraged and discontinued due to its ability to impact the safety and security of an armed aircraft door. I believe that there still remains an ingrained cultural difference between the training of premerger flight attendants; in the proper procedure for aircraft door arming. I think a note or bulletin needs to be sent out to each and every flight attendant explaining proper procedures so that complacency does not breed an opportunity for a fatal outcome.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant laments the arming and disarming of entry doors by flight attendants that are not part of the working crew; in order to be helpful. He believes this practice may have been encouraged by the other merger partner.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 1.25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After filing IFR; I got an email (Foreflight) stating 'Expected Route Received' of 'BFI TAOMA J5 SUMMA J54 BKE BYI BEARR5 ZZZ. BFI clearance delivery gave me a verbal clearance of NRVNA1 TAOMA fly 135; climb via SID. The SID has a climb limit of 2;000 feet. Tower cleared me for takeoff and (I believe)135 heading. After takeoff; I checked in with Seattle Departure and a few seconds later; they asked me what my heading was. I replied 135 then direct NRVNA which is what the SID says. They asked me again and now I was SURE I was not doing what I was supposed to be doing. They gave me a 30deg LEFT turn followed shortly by a climb; so I believe I flew farther to the west than what they expected of me. I am still confused by what I would term a sort of 'hybrid' clearance. Was I cleared to fly the NRVNA SID or was I supposed to maintain 135 deg heading until further notice. It was the combination of 'fly 135' and 'climb via SID' that seemed contradictory. I should have been more forceful in querying the controller; but the freq was very busy. A simple solution; in my opinion; would have been for Tower to say 'Fly 135; climb and maintain 2;000 feet; cleared for takeoff'. Then it would have been clear to me that the NRVNA SID was not expected right after takeoff.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a heading deviation after takeoff that was caused by confusing pre-takeoff clearance instructions.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Soon after takeoff a strong odor filled the cabin. Smelled of exhaust and dirty wet carpet or boots/socks. Passengers were complaining about the odor asking what it was. The A Flight Attendant (FA) notified the flight deck; I went to sit next to her at the forward jump seat. Dissipated after 5-10 minutes. Captain decided to return to ZZZ and made an announcement to inform the passengers that we were doing so. While descending and returning; odor/fumes returned. Was very strong in the mid cabin area where I was seated as the C FA at the 2R door near row 9. My nose burned and started running.




Synopsis: Airbus A320 series Flight Attendant reported their flight returned to departure airport after a strong odor filled the cabin.
Date: 201902
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had a small fuel imbalance. Decided to cross feed #1 engine from #2 tank. I recollect thinking I need to set a timer - but I forgot to. The #2 tank got depleted and #1 engine lost power. As soon as I realized that I had lost power; I realized what had happened. I switched both engines to tank #1; restored power; and regained lost altitude and resumed track. #1 engine took 15-30 seconds to restore power; though #2 engine regained power immediately. I had to restore fuel flow to #1 engine by using the electric boost pump.As I lost altitude earlier; and deviated from heading; ATC queried my deviation; and I told them I needed to descend and they could vector me as necessary. I did not want to lose airspeed by trying to climb on single engine. An air restart would be easier if the engine was wind milling.Error was in using cross feed in a situation where the cross feeding was not essential to safety of flight; then not setting a reminder to remove cross feed; and subsequently causing fuel starvation.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot reported mismanagement of fuel crossfeed resulted in a loss of power and an altitude excursion until power was restored.
Date: 201209
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain requested our one and only restroom break prior to starting our descent into Denver which was delayed because of passenger use of the forward lavatory. The Captain left the cockpit followed by myself. I came back to cockpit from restroom break and while I was gone we had received a clearance to cross TOMSN Intersection at FL190 and speed 250 KTS. I believe we had previously received a clearance to descend to FL250 and the autopilot was in ALT HOLD so VNAV was not engaged. [Neither] the Captain nor I noticed this condition and so the descent did not occur with the autoflight. Scheduling had sent an ACARS message right at the time of my bathroom break and the Captain was involved in the reassignment from Crew Scheduling that turned our scheduled one leg day into a multi leg 8 hour flying time day with approximately 13 hours of duty. I had started my day very early to make a commute; so the reassignment was unacceptable and created stress and tension in the cockpit where our focus on flying the plane was compromised as we reviewed the ACARS message from Crew Scheduling. The Captain then realized that he had not started the descent in time to make the assigned altitude and speed crossing restriction. I asked the Controller if we could get relief on the altitude crossing restriction and he said to do the best we can and that we could delete the speed. We missed the crossing altitude by approximately 2;000 FT. No apparent traffic conflict. The timing of the message from Crew Scheduling coincided with our descent into Denver and the assigned crossing assignment which was the triggering factor. Also; the delayed restroom break contributed to my being out of the cockpit during the initial descent from cruise altitude and then the assigned crossing at TOMSN.




Synopsis: The flight crew did not begin the descent at the appropriate point due to distraction. The distraction occurred due to a late lavatory visit and an untimely ACARS message in regard to crew schedule change.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute; three hours into flight at FL360; we noticed the rudder trim  was slightly out of balance. When we attempted to trim the rudder; we found the rudder trim knob was frozen and would not move.  We very carefully moved the rudder pedals to confirm the rudders were still functional and found they were.  We notified maintenance of the issue and continued on to destination without declaring an emergency; since all primary flight controls were working normally.  The crosswinds were less than 3 knots.  The approach and landing were uneventful.  After landing and clearing the runways; we again attempted to move the rudder trim knob and found it still frozen.  At block-in we tried the knob once more just before shutting down and found the knob was functioning normally.  We wrote a maintenance discrepancy and debriefed with maintenance personnel in the cockpit after shutdown.  We also included in the maintenance write-up that the First Officer observed a significant amount of water draining from the airframe during his exterior pre-flight.  Suspected cause is ice buildup but is not confirmed.

Callback: The reporter did not remain with the aircraft after the incident and does not know if there were any maintenance findings.  A thunderstorm had passed over the field just prior to departure and a great deal of water was running of the air frame; in addition heavy rain was encountered during departure.



Synopsis: MD11 flight crew experiences frozen rudder trim at FL360.  Flight continues to destination for a normal landing with rudder trim still frozen.  Just prior to engine shut down the trim is found to be free.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was going to ZZZ via uncommon routing to avoid weather. The aircraft was filed ZZZ direct. The aircraft flew through the ZZZ1 arrival corridor. The aircraft entered within the correct altitude parameters; but exited the corridor 1;000 MSL above without a pointout to the ZZZ sector/XX. I believe the event happened because at the time I was taking Approach Control airspace with detailed info being passed to me and my attention was brought elsewhere. Another contributing factor would be the Controller on 3 months off prior and out of practice with normal procedures.I recommend that there be more training on assuming Approach Control airspace for individuals who do not work mid-shifts. We do not normally have to take over the approach controls until later at night; but with the pandemic we've been assuming airspace sooner in the day. More information for those that aren't familiar with normal procedures may be helpful.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an airspace violation and cited having to take approach control's airspace as a contributing factor.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDX.Tower, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft Y was on final for Runway 10R (our south runway); talking to Local Control 2. I had Aircraft X with a westbound transition request to follow the Columbia River; opposite direction to our Runway 10L/R arrivals. Aircraft X's request is a routine request that usually occurs at 800 feet. On this day; the Pearson Airport; which is three miles west of PDX; right under our final; was unusually busy. I told Aircraft X that he either needed to divert to the north of Pearson for all that traffic; or climb above it. He elected to climb to 1100 feet for the westbound transition. When Aircraft X was approximately two miles west of PDX; I gave him the Aircraft Y traffic; who was now inside a 4 mile final for Runway 10R. He said he was looking. I immediately went back to him and told him to turn right 30 degrees for traffic (my concern in a more severe northerly turn; is that it would put him right on all this Pearson traffic). Aircraft X immediately came back to me and told me that he had Aircraft Y in sight. I told him to remain north of that traffic and to maintain visual separation. On the other side at local issued the Aircraft X traffic to Aircraft Y and told him that he was maintaining visual separation. Aircraft Y said he was responding to an RA and that Aircraft X was 'way too close.'This event is being brought to our attention because the region quality control staff (not the pilot) decided to file an NMAC. While this situation was not ideal; traffic advisories and visual separation had been successful. I followed the parameters of the 7110.65. I'd recommend that the region contact the pilot of Aircraft X and review the 'safe distance' to another aircraft while applying visual separation.




Synopsis: PDX Tower Controller reported instructing a VFR pilot to maintain visual separation from an arriving aircraft on approach. The pilot acknowledged the instruction; but the resulting conflict was logged as an NMAC.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Rejected takeoff at 80 knots due to CAWS 'Headwind Shear' Warning.  Winds were reported as 190/27 G 35. Gusty wind conditions resulted in receiving a CAWS 'Headwind Shear' warning at 80 KIAS.


Second narrative: Reported wind was 190/25 gusting 35. First Officer (FO) was pilot flying. On takeoff roll; shortly after the 80 knot call; we were given a windshear alert. Captain called a reject and we transferred controls. We taxied clear and ran through the rejected takeoff checklist. Upon completion of the checklist and after checking that brake temps were satisfactory for another takeoff attempt; Capt directed me to enter a windshear profile into the takeoff data. He also became the pilot flying. We then departed the field with no further incident.


Synopsis: Flight crew reports rejecting a takeoff at 80 knots due to CAWS 'Headwind Shear' Warning. The next takeoff is uneventful.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Landing at LAX; Runway 24R. We had a firm landing. I felt no need to enter anything in the aircraft log. No masks dropped. It was just a firm touchdown. Entered wake turbulence at about 40 ft AGL. Found out from my First Officer who was greeting passengers after flight that a male passenger complained of an injury due to landing. It's an everyday occurrence. Talk and plan.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a passenger complained of an injury following wake turbulence during landing.
Date: 202002
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Weather; Manuals; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In the interest of safety; I refused an aircraft for an inoperative APU. Terrain considerations as well as being a night flight were the primary safety considerations. Having both a backup electric and pneumatic source was my primary concern in obtaining an A/C with an operable APU. After the required consultation with dispatch as well as Maintenance; I was dispatched a different aircraft which was more than safe and acceptable for our flight. Another consideration in my decision making was the possibility of leaving the aircraft overnight at an airport under possible extreme cold weather conditions under -15 degree C. I did not want to leave an aircraft under those conditions overnight without an inoperable APU and possibly pose a problem for the outbound crew the next morning. On a positive note; now having the ability to access maintenance information for any aircraft at any time via [software] is PRICELESS. An extremely useful functionality that I've greatly advocated to be returned to us. Dispatched thanked me immensely for the early notification in plenty of time as not to incur any delay due to a shorter notice refusal. On a highly negative note; this aircraft should never have been dispatched that night in my opinion for the reasons stated above. The company has to do a much better job of not setting up crews and ultimately themselves for failure. The operation could have been negatively affected the following day simply because parties allowed a non-APU aircraft to be dispatched to and stay overnight at an extreme cold weather station.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that they refused an aircraft due to an inoperable APU.