elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: F70.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G F70
ATC / advisory: CTAF F70
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft flew an extended crosswind pattern. We didn't see or hear him on radio. He reported that he heard us and didn't reply. He is faster and attempted and overtake; when we reported turning final he reported to be 200 ft. above us; he decided to go around. We had descended below TPA to land. He was way too high to be attempting to land from his current position. We apologized and continued to land; he went around and landed. We became visual with the conflicting aircraft as we rolled into final. The other aircraft was still on his base leg.




Synopsis: PA28 Instructor Pilot reported an NMAC while on final approach.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had massive stomach cramps after level off at cruise. Switched positions with [Relief Pilot]. Got sick twice in lavatory; shaking violently. Decided to [aircraft returned to departure airport] to ZZZZ. Went to hospital. Blood test confirmed I had pancreatic episode. Feel totally better today. Slept all day.


Second narrative: Several minutes after level off at cruise altitude the Captain indicated that he was not feeling well. When he stood up to take the first rest break it appeared to me that he was having more than just an upset stomach. The [Relief Pilot] took the Captains seat and I continued as Pilot Flying. We made a SAT COM call to our Dispatcher and asked for assistance from AeroMed service. After we described his symptoms and discussed our options AeroMed recommended a diversion to ZZZZ. Our Dispatcher concurred that this was the best option. We [requested priority handling] and got clearance to return to ZZZZ. Once we reached ZZZZ airspace we received approval to jettison fuel. With the Captain in the crew rest area; [Relief Pilot] and I requested Runway XXR and made a normal landing. Paramedics and an ambulance were awaiting our arrival and came onboard to provide medical care. I accompanied our Captain to the hospital along with a Gateway Agent and a person from International SOS service.


Synopsis: B747-8F flight crew reported airborne medical return to departure airport due to Captain experiencing pancreatic episode.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About 10 minutes into boarding flight to ZZZ1 aft cabin was cool. FA (Flight Attendant) called f/d (flight deck) to turn heat up in back. Pilots started APU. Quickly we smelled exhaust in cabin. Trouble is; it got worse with heat and stayed in cabin for about 5 minutes when I called fwd Flight Attendant to see if odor was worse in mid cabin as we were actively boarding and I could not move fwd easily. D FA said yes odor is bad. I called f/d to notify. They stated it is normal on APU start up. I have been flying for over 15 years in and out of ZZZ. I never had odor last so long. About 10 minutes later I asked pilot to come back. 6-7 minutes later he made it back here. By then I opened L2 for fresh air. He explained the odor is totally normal for cold dense air that was ZZZ. When boarding was complete I did cabin safety check and one passenger at row 21 asked about odor and said she had a headache coming on because of it. Other FA stated that passenger in exit row was wiping their eyes and stated that is was due to odor. The odor did diminish within maybe 20 minutes. This is not safe for any of us on aircraft. I had an unusual cough through this morning since incident. I am sure I am not the only one. Please mitigate this issue in such cold temps for our safety and passengers. Turn on APU before passengers board in such cold temps.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant reported a fume event during passenger boarding. Flight attendants and one passenger experienced physiological issues.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: PM (Pilot Monitoring) recorded ATIS information from ZZZ and the PF (Pilot Flying) briefed the approach accordingly. Runway conditions were expected to be wet; and braking reported as 5/5/5. Approach to land was stable; with touchdown occurring within the touchdown zone. Ground flaps and brakes were applied according to CE-525B operating procedures. Braking action was consistent to wet runway conditions with no issues of traction or stopping power as experienced by the PF. PIC (Pilot in Command) requested controls from SIC (Second in Command) to further test the braking action. Prior to the transfer of controls; the aircraft was nearing normal taxi speed. Transfer of controls was made; and the PIC determined the braking was excellent and returned controls to the SIC. (Prior to exiting the runway; a communication from another aircraft was heard on Tower frequency reporting they had clipped taxiway lights and braking nil while exiting at the end of the parallel runway.) PF slowed the aircraft to a near stop and exited the runway at [Taxiway] XX. Once the aircraft was turned and exiting the runway; PF informed the PM that sliding was occurring and there was no directional or stopping control. The aircraft slid laterally and came to a stop with the left main in the grass on the left side of [Taxiway] XX exiting the runway. Break thrust was applied in an attempt to move out of the grass and the aircraft began sliding again; making a left 270 spin. With both engines at idle; the aircraft was again sliding laterally. The left engine was then shut down which stopped the slide. ATC was notified and checklists were performed. The aircraft was towed from XX to [the] hangar where post flight actions were conducted.




Synopsis: CE-525 Pilot reported taxiway excursion due to icing.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: CS closed the aircraft door before ensuring that all bins; bags and butts were good to go. We had people standing; bins not closed due to last minute passengers stowing bags and one more last minute person to brief at the window exit row.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reports the Customer Service agent closing the door with people standing; bins not closed due to last minute passengers stowing bags and one more last minute person to brief at the window exit row.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxied on to runway; a designated event parking area. Taxiing west bound along the right side of the 75 foot runway; aircraft were parked on the left side of the runway; facing north. Taxied as close to the right side; limited by the runway edge lights; while cautiously observing the left wing clearance. A mild vibration was felt similar to running over a rougher runway surface. Post flight inspection revealed that there had been an impact on the bottom edge of the left wing.The ground attendant let us know that local knowledge for parking in this area was done by weaving in between the runway edge lights on the right side of the runway. The impacted aircraft was parked with its nose protruding further out by a few feet compared to the line of parked aircraft. There were no wing walkers to provide assistance with wing clearance. Post flight measurements determined that wing tip clearance could only have been achieved by taxiing within a foot of the runway edge lights. This was later confirmed with a crew on a Global Express parked beside the damaged aircraft; as two wing walkers guided them past the aircraft with no room to spare on left wing and the right main gear. After our mishap; other large aircraft were subsequently parked on the other side of the airport. Later observing a departing aircraft; we saw how the crew taxied; weaving between the runway lights.The following morning line servicing had been moving parked aircraft further back to the runway edge. When asked why it hadn't been done on arrival; I was informed that all qualified tow crew personnel had completed their shift at XC:00. Yet the damaged aircraft had arrived shortly before XA:00. Ultimately it was my responsibility to ensure safe and proper clearances. In future; in confined and restricted taxi operations; I will make sure there are outside ground handling personnel to assist in guiding the aircraft.




Synopsis: BD700 Captain reported that while using a 75 ft runway to taxi; the bottom of the wing made contact with the nose of one of the parked aircraft. The runway was reportedly being used as a designated event parking area.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial takeoff roll; aircraft had a vibration that seemed to be associated with nose gear tires; but nothing extreme. Passing 90 KTS; when I expected the vibration to dissipate; the vibration slightly intensified; but still nothing extreme. At approximately 120 KTS; the vibration became extreme with tremendous effects in the cockpit. Executed the rejected takeoff (RTO) procedure as soon as I could when this vibration intensified; deeming the aircraft unsafe to fly. Exited runway; followed QRH procedure for RTO; determined brake demands; communicated with Tower; Ramp Tower; and Maintenance to return to gate. I was occupying the left seat in role of Check Airman for a First Officer student that had been off for over a week; thus I elected to operate the first leg in the role of pilot flying.Aircraft had been sitting over the weekend. Maintenance informed us that work had been performed on the fuel system; requiring the aircraft to be fueled to full capacity. Evidently the aircraft sat in this condition so long that the nose tires developed severe flat spots. This is what made the vibration intensify with increased airspeed. Maintenance changed both nose gear tires and informed us it was definitely the flat spots that caused the observed vibration.If we could limit the time the aircraft sits on the ramp in the full fuel condition that would certainly alleviate the ensuing flat spots. However; once we returned to the gate; entire team did a nice job working together to get us back out as soon as possible.




Synopsis: A B757-200 Captain rejected the takeoff at 120 KTS when the nose tire vibration became excessive due to flat spots developed because the aircraft sat fully loaded with fuel over a weekend.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-8 70
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A DC87 landing roll out on Runway 28R was told to turn left at Taxiway Romeo and hold short of Runway 28L. Cleared an A320 for takeoff on Runway 28L; the DC87 continued west of Runway 28L in front of the A320. The A320 aborted his takeoff on his own after seeing the DC87 crossing. The DC87 [should have] read back hold short of 28L.


Second narrative: During landing at SFO on Runway 28R; ATC issued us taxi instructions. My attention was on handling the aircraft as our speed was still high and we had a direct 15 knot crosswind which made the roll out challenging. My First Officer took the taxi instructions from ATC and read them back. I apparently only heard the first part of those instructions which was to exit Runway 28R at 'R'. Romeo was near the end of Runway 28R. Once I reached 'R' exit I turned left onto the taxiway. Unfortunately; I did not hear the second part of the taxi instructions which was to hold short of 28L. I continued my taxi on 'R' until I heard SFO Tower call the departure to abort their takeoff. Then the Tower told us that we were supposed to hold short of 28L. I turned to my First Officer and asked if we were supposed to hold sort of 28L and he said yes. He was distracted once I was exiting the runway with his after landing flows and he was not paying attention to where I was taxiing. I spoke with the Tower and they said that we did not have a runway incursion. However it was a failure to follow instructions. They submitted a report.


Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller described an aborted takeoff on Runway 28L when observing an aircraft crossing down field without ATC approval.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring. About 2 miles from the final approach fix captain called gear down.  After I selected gear down we got a gear disagree message and noticed that the nose wheel was not in the down and locked position. We immediately executed a go-around. Got a vector and an altitude and ran the QRH. We decided to attempt a second approach. On that approach we experienced the same indication once the gear was selected down. We did another go-around and continued to run the QRH. After all the procedures were completed we had an all 3 green indication. Once that was complete we did a low approach to have the ground crew try and verify the nose gear was down. They thought it was down and we had 3 green indication so we did the approach again and landed. Captain did the landing and kept the nose off as long as possible. Once the nose touched down we noticed a different sound than normal and we did not have any steering. So we stopped on the runway and were towed to the gate. Try and keep the QRH in better condition. The QRH in the plane had pages falling out; which made it difficult to find the correct pages.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported a failure of the nose gear to extend properly during approach. Using QRH procedures a safe indication was achieved; but there was no steering upon landing.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Filler Cap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CFI applicant was instructing me on proper preflight and systems. During the course of the lesson we took off the oil filler cap and inserted a funnel intending to put in 1 qt of oil. We determined that the oil level was sufficient for the flight (8 qts) and it would be unnecessary to add the additional quart. We removed the funnel and took the quart of oil back to the supply cabinet; returned to the aircraft and closed the access door neglecting to put the filler lid back on. During climb out I noticed oil streaming out from the access panel and realized that we forgot to put the cap on. We [advised ATC] and landed without incident. Upon removing the cowl at [the] ramp we discovered that we did leave the cap off. Less than 1 quart was lost according to the dipstick. Maintenance was called and the aircraft was taxied to them to have the engine cleaned. Without having a clear understanding of who was doing the actual preflight and who was instructing; we both missed that the cap was left unsecured.




Synopsis: C182RG Instructor pilot reported taking off with the oil filler cap not installed.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Over 1;000 kg of Lithium Ion batteries on board; half of which (either 540 or 460 kg) were loaded in the forward belly. This is an unsafe loading position for batteries which are a known fire hazard.Not sure why the batteries were loaded in an inaccessible Dangerous Goods position. Because the CFSS is so much more effective on Lithium battery fires than halon; all Lithium Ion and Lithium Metal batteries ought to be loaded on the main cargo deck; not in halon controlled; inaccessible positions.




Synopsis: A cargo flight Captain noted that Lithium Ion batteries were loaded the aircraft's inaccessible belly compartment but the crew would be better able to fight a fire if they were in the main deck cargo area.