elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Taxi
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing in ZZZ; Aircraft X; while parked waiting for a gate; the aft FA (Flight Attendant) called the cockpit stating that during final descend around 6;000 ft. they smelled the dirty sock odor in the back of the airplane; the odor was present then went away during the final descent and the upon landing the odor came back and went away again. I told her that we were going to park; disembark and have Maintenance inspect the airplane. We parked shortly after and disembarked the passengers. I talked to the Flight Attendant number 1 and asked him about it and he told me that he went back and did not smell anything. I also asked him if the other [cabin] crew members were OK and he replied yes we all are OK. The odor was spontaneous and went away. I call Maintenance in ZZZ1 and reported the issue and made a log book entry. Maintenance ZZZ1 told me they will address the issue with maintenance in ZZZ.No further actions was required and all crew members went to the hotel and worked the next flight the next day without any complaints.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported aft cabin Flight Attendant notified the flight deck of an intermittent 'dirty socks' odor from final descent until parked.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing in ZZZ it was brought to my First Officer's attention by Ramp Personnel that a battery was left inserted in a Passenger's checked luggage that was stored in the aircraft's cargo compartment.




Synopsis: Captain reported ramp personnel notified flight crew that a battery powered passenger bag was illegally transported in cargo compartment.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: cross wind; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing at a fast walk got blown to left and with full right rudder was unable to hold aircraft on Runway XXL. Wind was 340 at 4 to 6 knots. I chose not to force a ground loop to stay on the runway and took aircraft off the runway onto the grass. Aircraft slowed and I was able to get on the Heel brakes stop it and return to runway. If the aircraft had been equipped with Toe brakes instead of Heel brakes this occurrence would not have happened. I have over 2000 hours in tailwheel aircraft.




Synopsis: The pilot of a tailwheel aircraft equipped with heel brakes was unable to prevent a runway excursion. The sudden wind and the brake system design were contributing factors.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were cleared via the Mustang 5 departure. This DP (Departure Procedure) is for [Runways] 9L/27R. The Draggin 5 departure is also for [Runways] 9L/27R. However; there is major construction on that runway and it is closed indefinitely. We were assigned [Runway] 27L for departure. We had to query Clearance Delivery for departure instructions for that particular runway. They said it was the same for both runways on the Mustang 5 departure.It seems like Jeppessen should update the chart to include routing instructions for both runways.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports Departure procedure does not specify correct departure runway.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Carousel 1 became overwhelmed with too many bags and caused the passengers bags to fall off the carousel on people's feet.  Multiple baggage agents came to help pull the bags off the carousel. Airline agents were trampled and passengers were pushing agents to get to their bags. This is creating a dangerous situation with too many flights coming in on one baggage carousel.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported a baggage carousel with too many bags on it that were falling off and dropping on people.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the traffic pattern inbound for the second touch and go on Runway XX at ZZZ Airport. I was turning left base for Runway XX; before I noticed that an aircraft was inbound for left base for the opposite runway which is Runway XY. I tried to communicate with him that I was turning for the final of Runway XX but I did not hear any respond. Then I continued for the final of Runway XX. Then I called out for the short final of Runway YY then I corrected twice that I was on the short final of Runway XX. Upon the completion of the touch and go I called out that I was on the upwind of Runway XX and then the aircraft called out for left base of Runway XY. I pitched down to try to avoid the aircraft that was on the left base of Runway XY. I tried to see and avoid but I still did not have the aircraft in sight. I pitched up to climb and I saw the aircraft approximately 150 feet above me and I avoided the midair collision. I communicated with the other pilot and asked him if he had seen me and he replied that he thought I was landing on Runway YY.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action in response to a NMAC during landing. The other pilot believed the pilot was landing on a different runway.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I've been making these reports for the loaders more often than usual lately. This was a typical day trip with a full load of passengers. When I received the cargo load report it said 53 Normal bags and 4 heavy. The Captain asked if it was all below the line and the person stated 'Yes' it was below the line. I have a personal limit of 45 bags; from personal experience; that I will go ensure it's all below the fire line (2' of clearance).I went down to the ramp and opened the closed forward cargo bin. When I opened the bin I could immediately see that the cargo was touching the top of the bin (therefore not 2'!). I asked the ramp person that provided me the cargo load report to come over and he did; I then asked if he verified that the cargo was in fact below the fire suppression line before telling us (the flight crew) that it was all below. He stated 'No' he did not check. I pointed out the first bag that was clearly touching the top of the bin and he went for the loader without hesitation. I took several pictures; some after we had already moved bags. We would move a group of bags and I would see that one's behind it also touched the top/protruded into the fire line. I had them correct the issue by putting the bags in the center of the compartment that was nearly empty. Usually this is the place the baggage handler sits; but should really be used for what it's for; cargo! We corrected the issue and pushed on time.This has got to stop! This new year I have already seen multiple issues. I've started to tell rampers that if there are more than 45 bags the rest need to go in the back so that I can stop going down for inspections when it's time to push. This has already worked 2 times. I feel like we need to create a procedure to where over 45 bags they have to put the remainder in the back. If they end up having some incredibly high baggage count they can fill both bins fully but they better be below the line! I'll keep doing these reports until the problem is solved. I know enough about cargo from my other job that if you get a fire; you don't want to eliminate the chance of putting it out because of some baggage handler that was lazy.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported that he routinely finds that baggage has been loaded above the fire line in the forward baggage compartment and must be redistributed to be in compliance. The baggage handlers always state that the baggage is below the line when asked but do not actually check.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Noticed an 'el mstrm nse up/dn' amber CAS lite. Soon the autopilot kicked off. Reset pitch trim and FGC1 and 2 lites on. The elec and manual trim were frozen. We followed QRH but still no control. We elected to descend to a warmer alt and divert. At around 15000 ft the trim was regained. We flew normal landing. We had no autopilot after pitch trim was disconnected until we regained pitch trim.There probably was a malfunction of the trim motor heater which we would have no indication of in the cockpit. Since we had no idea what was causing the malfunction we diverted to a suitable alternate to avoid RVSM airspace. Alt control was at times + or - 100 feet.




Synopsis: GIV-SP First Officer reported pitch trim became inoperative in cruise; flight crew decided to divert and regained pitch trim after descending to a warmer altitude.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: It was a long flight as we had a long route due to weather right down the middle of the country. As we were descending into our destination airspace we had the airport in sight. I believe we were cleared for the visual approach to the runway. I remember passing through 1;000 FT and I believe it was around 850 FT AGL that we both heard the EGPWS say 'TOO LOW; GEAR.' We both looked at the EICAS and confirmed the landing gear was showing three green. A few seconds later we heard the EGPWS again say 'TOO LOW; GEAR.' At that point neither one of us was comfortable continuing the approach so we decided to do a go-around. We flew runway heading and climbed to 2;000 FT (I think). I told the Tower that we were going around for a gear indication problem. We believed it was not a gear problem; but maybe a computer problem with the EGPWS. We were given vectors for a downwind and I pulled out the book to look for any procedure. Tower asked if we were declaring an emergency and I told them 'not at this time'. My co-pilot and I came to the conclusion that because we got no EICAS messages about the gear not being down and the aural warning was from the EGPWS system we decided to do another visual approach. I discussed with my co-pilot that we would do everything the same and if we got the aural warning again with the gear being down and locked on the EICAS that we would level off at about 1;000 FT AGL and just ask the Tower if they could see that all three of our gear were down. On the second approach everything was normal just as it was on the first approach; with no aural warnings on the second approach. We landed with no problems. No assistance was required. Called Maintenance Control after we were blocked in; and they agreed that it was a computer malfunction. At no point did we ever get any EICAS messages about gear disagree.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 EGPWS issued a 'TOO LOW GEAR' alert at about 850 FT on approach with the gear indicating down and locked with no EICAS messages; so a go around was executed and on the second approach the warning did not alert.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Final Approach; Landing; Taxi; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm reporting a recurrent occurrence where an Air Traffic Controller serving the Tower (and occasionally ground) is utilizing unclear speech on the frequency. The issue is not so much the radio phraseology; it's rather the constant mumbling; fast talking and unclear speech that often force you to request repetition. I'm used to very high paced radio talk enroute; but with TRACON and ARTCC it's almost always distinct and easily recognizable. I often need to concentrate hard to try to make out what this Controller means with certain instructions. I've had occurrences where even the wind information or equivalent from the ATIS recording has been unreadable. The reason why I report it is because I can clearly hear that I'm not alone having trouble understanding; past all the fast paced mumbling. During high workload and dense traffic conditions at this airport (which is common); this becomes a safety hazard. ATC gets more stressed because they have to repeat half of the instructions and the airplane crews are not always completely sure what's expected of them. All because of indistinct radio mumbling. I couldn't find any better source of reporting this other than here. I haven't yet been in any severe traffic conflicts because you take extra precautions and scan your surroundings but I want to raise my concerns before something happens because of ATC; no less for the Controller's sake.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 instructor pilot reports that a local ATC Controller's mumbling; indistinct; and rapid speech on Tower; Ground Control; and ATIS communications causes confusion and requires many pilots to have to ask for a repeat of radio transmissions.
Date: 201911
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a Visual Approach backed up by the ILS I misread the altitude at the Final Approach Fix as 2;000 feet; it is actually 2;800 feet. As I was descending we observed the PAPI as red and the perspective of the runway looked like we were low. At the same time we received a Low Altitude Alert from ATC. We immediately corrected our descent path and continued the approach. ATC queried whether everything was OK and we advised them that we had corrected our flight path. As we landed we realized that we were still on the Approach Control frequency. My suspicion is the Controller was distracted by my earlier error and did not think to switch us. We were similarly distracted and did not think to query the Controller.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported that distraction following an altitude deviation resulted in landing without a clearance.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The crew and myself had a 'limo service' to take us to airport. A nasty cab pulls up to take us on this [time period] hour drive; when dark and in rain. The driver was all over the road the entire drive. I asked multiple times if he is OK and if he wanted to pull over. He refused. He was bouncing lane to lane; on and off the shoulder. The Flight Attendant in front seat asked him multiple times if he was okay to drive. The driver was very tired or on drugs. He bounced off of a concrete barrier at one point; tire hit first so not much damage; just scraped front bumper. Which is what they are designed to do. We then proceeded to demand him to pull over and check damage; inform police. Driver denied and said no. We then were concerned he was under the influence of some drug; since he did not want to involve the police. We were scared for our lives the entire drive. I have never been so scared in a car in my life. I could not believe our company would do something so dangerous to crew members. We barely made it to the airport; and us as a crew decided we were not fit to fly an airplane.Scheduling needs to figure another system out in bringing crew members to locations. If the driver had driven off the road; we could have easily died. Scheduling cannot trust these beat up taxi services for long drives like this one. They need to take into account the time of night; weather; and how dangerous it can be. It was a huge risk getting into that taxi and we should not have accepted it.




Synopsis: First Officer reported that a taxi driver driving recklessly and possibly under the influence caused the crew to be unfit for flight.