elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge; Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During inflight A Flight Attendant informed B and C that there a strange ordor in forward cabin and asked us to confirm and identify what we smelled...I identified the smell as a dirty gym or dirty towels like smell. All three of us smelled the dirty musty smell.


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


Synopsis: Flight attendants reported a 'dirty socks' odor during cruise.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While enroute at FL360 we noticed the Number 2 Engine oil quantity was at 40%. As we monitored it; it continued to decrease. The Captain initiated a dialogue with Dispatch and Maintenance and all agreed to keep monitoring it and let them know if we diverted. The oil quantity decreased to 25% and we decided to declare an emergency and divert. At this point we were coming up on the front range and the weather in [our divert airport] was clear. We advised the flight attendants and passengers and landed without incident. We could not find a checklist for low oil quantity; only for low oil pressure which we never got (but probably would have if we continued). We did not shut the engine down.


Second narrative: Oil quantity had gone from 72 to 25. All appropriate departments and ATC were notified while enroute.


Synopsis: When the right engine oil quantity continually decreased to only 25% the flight crew of a B737 elected to declare and emergency and divert to a nearby airport.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Maintenance had replaced crew O2 bottle and First Officer Mask Regulator in ZZZ. [We were] approaching an intersection; arranged for a bathroom break. First Officer found his oxygen inoperative and the crew bottle at zero. Coordinated for a descent and ran QRH. Procedure is under MISC and is not in index [of QRH]. Suggest it be added to [QRH] index under 'O': Oxygen System malfunction. Declared an emergency and we were cleared direct to ZZZ1. Landed without incident; cancelled Emergency on landing. Taxiied to gate. Aircraft Out of Service (OTS). Leak was slow enough it was not possible for crew to detect before takeoff. If crew O2 bottle has been replaced two days in a row. Delay departure for a period of time before release for Crew O2 Leak Check. Airline Transport Pilot (ATP).


Second narrative: In cruise; FL300; approximately 150 miles east of ZZZ; I noticed the crew O2 supply was depleted. Informed Captain who declared an emergency; we executed QRH actions. Landed safely at ZZZ.

Second callback: The crew O2 bottle is located just behind and to the right of his First Officer's seat and the bottle shut-off handle and pressure gauge is also mounted on the bottle. The O2 bottle looks like a standard 'old' green steel bottle. He does not believe the bottle was a composite type.  He had performed a triple check of his O2 Mask and bottle pressure prior to departure because Maintenance had been working on the Crew O2 System and had also replaced his O2 mask/regulator foe leaking. The MD-83 aircraft was removed from service after they landed; but he does not know what actually contributed to the loss of the crew O2 bottle pressure.

Synopsis: A Captain and First Officer report about the loss of their crew O2 bottle pressure that read 'Zero' in cruise at FL300. Maintenance had replaced the crew O2 bottle and First Officer's oxygen mask regulator on their MD-83 aircraft prior to departure.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While practicing take off and landings on the downwind we brought the gear handle in the down position and didn't get a green indication on the right main wheel. I took the controls and recycled the gear without any success. After that; I contacted the Tower and advised them that I was going to leave the airspace to the southwest and climbed to 3;500 ft. and executed the emergency gear extension procedure with the use of the checklist and still no indication of gear deployed on the right gear. Applied some G-force on the plane to see if it comes down by gravity. After that I proceeded to fly back to the airport.I contacted the Tower and told them about the problem and that I would like to execute a low approach to have visual confirmation that the landing gear is down. During the low approach; Tower verified that landing gear was down but without any confirmation that it will hold the down position after touch down. I proceeded to [request priority handling]; executed a go-around climb back to traffic pattern altitude to execute the landing. During this portion of the flight I briefed my student with the steps to be followed in case landing gear collapsed; during the approach to final I performed a soft landing and trying to reduce as much load as possible on the right main gear while being ready to shut down the engine to protect it in case of the landing gear collapse. After I brought the plane to a full stop; emergency services verified that everything was alright and we proceeded to taxi back to the academy ramp. I then squawked the aircraft and briefed the mechanics regarding the malfunction.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a landing gear light did not indicate down and locked prior to landing and resulted in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When off-loading freight; the ramp agent informed us that the can in position 1R contained hazmat (corrosives); but was not connected to the fire hose. Upon inspection of the paperwork; it looks like the hazmat was also not declared on a Unit Load Device (ULD) Dangerous Goods (DG) manifest; although it was listed on the DG position summary. The First Officer was not briefed on this hazmat and did not know it was there until the ramp agent told us about it. He was only briefed on and inspected the can in 1L prior to departure. Additionally; the ramp agent told us that the [departure station] crew has been doing this on weekend morning flights at least 50% of the time. In violation of SOP; There was also overnight freight in front of the corrosives. The crew loading the hazmat is being careless; or just negligent. Hold the DG agent responsible for errors like this.




Synopsis: A300 Captain is informed during unloading that the container in position 1R contains a hazmat which the crew was not informed of and was not connected to the fire suppression system.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The DFW 17C/35C Glideslope on the ILS and the VNAV on the RNAV is not reliable! Both approaches for both runways; are showing aircraft 100 to 300 feet low all the way down final including the FAF (Final Approach Fix)! Management says it's been flight checked; and it checks out fine. Company said it was something to do with certain aircraft with a FMS update. All aircraft are low on the final. I don't want to be working aircraft down those runway finals during IMC weather when an aircraft is too low to the runway.Even though Management knows it's an issue; they say it's not an issue. They say continue using the approaches; but they want us to take aircraft out further on final; so we don't lose vertical separation with the aircraft next to them. I don't understand how that's an issue if there's 'not an issue.'First; I recommend no Instrument Approaches should be conducted to these two runways ASAP! I know this will delay the airlines; but this is a safety issue! I also recommend the equipment Maintenance Tech get out to the ILS/RNAV equipment; and find out what the problem is. It has to be an equipment issue. It's unsafe and needs to be fixed ASAP!




Synopsis: D10 TRACON Controller reported problems with aircraft being too low on the approach to DFW 17C/35C with possible glide slope issues.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This morning while departing we experienced an engine roll back. The FO ran the runway item checklist as I taxied out onto [the] runway. As I started to apply takeoff power all engine indications were normal. Upon reaching close to firewall [I] noticed we [were] not at the usual torque numbers. I then verified the throttle and advanced it full forward. At this point the indications went back to normal and we had reached Vr. We rotated and I instructed [the FO] to watch our torque-meter and notify [me] if it changed at all; and if it did we would be making an immediate turn back to [the] runway. Shortly after passing through 500 ft AGL and in a left turn to a 090 heading he stated that indeed the torque was rolling back. As previously briefed I executed a left turn back to [the runway] and landed without issue.


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


Synopsis: PC-12 flight crew reported returning to the departure airport after experiencing a power rollback shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Tower, NC
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cleared to land in CLT on 36L; we were in visual conditions with Flaps 15. I was the pilot flying and after I made my 500 foot callout; ATC announced the surface winds were 190 degrees 11 gusting 17. Since it was too late to configure to flaps 35; the Captain called for a go around. Several other planes were also going around. So; ATC had a high workload and was sending us several miles away from the airport. They were still unsure as to whether to turn the airport around. ATC told one aircraft that they were waiting to decide if the tailwinds were due to storms in the area or if they need to turn the airport around. Due to fuel concerns and the uncertainty of how long it would take us to land; the Captain called Dispatch and we went to our alternate.




Synopsis: Dash-8 First Officer reported proceeding to an alternate after weather conditions at destination caused delays.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed LAS uneventfully using the bag count that we were given. Airplane flew and acted just fine. Enroute we got a message from dispatch that the bags that were supposed to be in CP1 were actually in CP4. No action taken on our part. Discussed event with FO and thought no more about it. Trip continued without trouble.In the future I as well as other pilots should pay closer attention to where the bags are actually placed and not just rely on the paperwork. Also it would be helpful if the paperwork was given to the crew ONLY AFTER ALL THE BAGS ARE LOADED. The calling up and reporting that 20 extra bags are added to CP1 as an example are just disruptive and generally go without consideration.




Synopsis: An A319 crew received a message from dispatch enroute advising of an error in their weight and balance due to bags being placed in a different container than utilized during the calculations.  The flight continued uneventfully to destination.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to pushback; I had removed a can of water from the wall side cup holder so I could put a cup of coffee there and set the can near the nose wheel tiller. I had planned on moving the can; but began a conversation with the Agent; my First Officer; and the Flight Attendant Crew. Unfortunately; I never moved the can and we accomplished our checklists; completed our pushback and engine start duties; and cleared the Ground Crew off after both engines started. We completed our After Start checklists and called for taxi. We were given a left turn out to taxi to the departure runway. I attempted to turn the tiller left and added power but the tiller wouldn't turn. I attempted to turn the tiller right and had full turn authority. I attempted three more times to turn the tiller left but to no avail. We asked the Ground Crew to come back out to the plane and check that the nose gear pin had been removed even though we were sure we saw them take it with them when they departed the plane with the tug. The Tug Driver checked the nose wheel area and assured us with hand signals that the nose gear pin had been removed. I then attempted once more to turn the tiller left and again; it would not turn. We then asked and received clearance to return to the gate; which we did. We elected to taxi slowly back in as we were in a straight line to the gate area and wouldn't have to make any turns. Once we shut the engines down and informed Operations of the situation; the Tug Driver entered the cockpit and told us what that everything looked normal to him in the nose wheel well. I attempted once more to turn the tiller left before I was going to call Dispatch for a patch to Maintenance Control when my hand slid off the tiller slightly and came in contact with the can of water I had repositioned some 20 minutes prior. I removed the can from under the tiller and the tiller moved freely. We talked to Dispatch about what our procedures were for departing and if they needed new paperwork. They informed us they didn't; our Agent cleared the gate return times and we pushed back; taxied out; and took off without incident.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain set a water can next to the steering tiller and after taxi out was unable to steer so returned to the gate where he found the water can; removed it and regained full steering control.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT; Tower SAT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SETZR1 RNAV Departure was assigned during pushback. We briefed and ran Departure Plan Checklist and I thought the bases were covered. There was a clue during taxi; that the First Officer thought LNAV was required for takeoff. But I didn't engage him for his reasoning; we just set up for an HGS takeoff at my request. SAT Tower simply cleared us for departure on Runway 04. No additional instructions; as I recall.On departure I was flying Runway Heading as I expected. The First Officer asked me if I wanted LNAV to proceed to the first fix (VAUHN) and I said no; just runway heading. He said we were supposed to go direct and I said 'Are you sure?' He said 'YES!' So; I said ok; and we engaged LNAV and started the turn. Then he checked in with SAT Departure. They were polite as there were no traffic conflicts. They reminded us that we were supposed to maintain runway heading; (or an assigned heading; per the SID) for our clearance.In retrospect I should have asked my First Officer to go ahead and contact Departure Control in order to verify our clearance. (Let ATC be the tie-breaker.)




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a misunderstanding between the Captain and First Officer whether to fly runway heading or comply with the RNAV Departure procedures which resulted in heading deviation.