elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I cannot safely fly the 737 with the new [iPad Mount] tray installed. At my normal sitting height; my normal arm position has my left forearm (from the Captain's seat) sitting just below the base of the [iPad Mount] and my normal flying arm movement is totally blocked from any upward movement of the control yoke (i.e.; right turns). It doesn't matter if I have the armrests down or up; as my arm usually is off the armrest when I'm hand flying.At this time; to safely and legally fly the airplane; I have to remove the [iPad Mount] and use paper charts. If the paper charts are removed in the future; I will no longer be able to safely and legally fly this aircraft; as I cannot hand fly with my left arm (from the Captain's seat) without my arm being blocked by the [iPad Mount] mount.Leaving the mount on for the First Officer's legs; my arm also was rubbing against the mount while taxiing the aircraft using Nose Wheel Steering. Although not blocked or overly unsafe; it was an annoyance.I'm by far not the broadest shouldered pilot flying this aircraft; so I imagine others are having this problem too. On my first leg with the [iPad Mount]; my First Officer's arm also annoyingly rubbed against it with his normal flying arm position. Not blocked like mine; but still noticeable and annoying.With the Ram Mounts; at least you were able to move them to different positions depending on pilot preference. While it's nice to be able to now close the sun shade without the suction cups blocking them; the trade off in my case is far from acceptable. With the [iPad Mount] as installed; my only option; other than removing them; would be to totally change how I have flown aircraft for many years; including sitting much further back; sitting higher or lower and flying with a fully extended straightened arm; vice the comfortable bend that most pilots usually fly with. This isn't an option as I don't feel it's a proper position to safely fly the aircraft from.




Synopsis: B737 pilot could not fly the aircraft with new mounting equipment for the iPad.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; a RECAT Category D aircraft; departed RWY 9R. The CIC-IT I was instructing departed Aircraft Y; a RECAT Category F aircraft; behind Aircraft X without waiting for the required 4 mile wake turbulence distance. I did not notice the error until Aircraft Y was lifting off; because I allowed myself to be distracted trying to coordinate a release on another aircraft.I do not have a recommendation to prevent this type of event. I simply did not pay attention as closely as I should have; possibly because I made an assumption about what the person in training was going to do and the assumption did not meet the action.I would like clarification about the RECAT rule. This same operation would not have been an error if it had occurred at an airport that does not use RECAT. I fail to understand how these two conflicting standards can be allowed to coexist in the NAS. If departing a [corporate jet] too close behind an [air carrier] is deemed unsafe at one airport; how can it be considered safe at another? I also believe having these two standards coexisting is confusing and dangerous to the pilots. If there were one standard throughout the NAS; and the pilots were aware of it; then they might correct an error like this by inquiring if the distance is acceptable. With two standards in play; a pilot would possibly think; 'This must be an airport where this wake turbulence distance is acceptable'. It is not really possible for the pilots to memorize which airports apply RECAT and which do not. If 6000 ft and airborne between these two planes is considered safe at most airports; it should be considered safe at all of them.




Synopsis: ORD Tower Controller reported of a loss of separation that was caused by the Developmental Controller releasing the aircraft with less than standard separation. Reporter questioned RECAT wake turbulence.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 'A' System Electric Hydraulic Pump removed and replaced on a B737-700 aircraft; job completed working with Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) 'Y'. AMT Y performed the pump replacement and cleanup of the work area after job completion. I assisted with tools; parts support and signing-off the logbook after job completion. Approximately four flight legs later; the crew reported having an 'A' System Electric low pressure light and a Circuit Breaker (C/B) popped. Contract Maintenance was called and re-secured the supply line from the reservoir to the pump and reset the C/B. Pump operated normal and aircraft continued. Possible [lack of] attention to detail. We were not under pressure or in a hurry; were given plenty of time. [Recommend] triple/quadruple check all connections.


Second narrative: Myself and fellow Mechanic X; had removed/replaced the 'A' System electric driven Hydraulic Pump on a B737-700 aircraft. I was informed that after five [flight] legs; the aircraft lost 'A' System Electric Hydraulic pressure at the gate and that Maintenance reseated the supply line from the reservoir and an Operational Check was good.


Synopsis: Two Line Mechanics were informed about a B737-700 aircraft that had lost 'A' System Electric Hydraulic pressure at a gate. Aircraft had flown only five flights since they had replaced the 'A' System Electric Hydraulic Pump.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAV.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SAV
ATC / advisory: Tower SAV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On left base to SAV Runway 10; Garmin G3X touch gave a message 'Savannah Class D within 10 minutes.' I was already in SAV Class D (inner part of Class C; maybe?) or perhaps the system suddenly decided I was headed to SVN -- which is universally known as Hunter (Army Air Field); but which some Fed decided should be called Savannah on the charts -- greatly adding to potential confusion; not only on this message but also when searching for nearest airport. The message did not say exactly which airport; only an airport name -- which was ambiguous. Garmin has been advised of the potential ambiguity; and the ludicrousness of this message (500 feet AGL descending and I get a message about Class D?). The naming ambiguity has been previously reported. No point in waiting to fix it till somebody gets a pilot deviation because the airport names are similar/ misleading/confusing.




Synopsis: Pilot reported his Garmin G3X gave an airspace warning for Savannah Class D when he was already well within that airspace. Pilot asked if it was possible the warning was for SVN airport; which could be a confusing scenario for pilots.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was climbing out of Runway ZZR and extending upwind as instructed by Tower. Started having engine roughness and pulled carb heat on. Immediately lost power to 1200-1500 RPM at full power with firing noise out of exhaust and little smoke smell reported by student. Decided to turn around and informed power of imminent engine failure and intentions. Tower instructed to make right traffic. Made left turn while squawking 7700 and [Requesting Priority Handling] and informed was coming back to the airport. Cleared to land Runway XYR; held altitude and pitched for best glide until had runway made and descended for safe landing and taxi back to ZZZ. During run-up and flight on local practice area everything was normal.




Synopsis: C152 Instructor reported returning to departure airport due to rough running engine.
Date: 201409
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was attempting to complete my preflight security check but had to stop because boarding had commenced. The right overhead equipment and overhead bins had been checked along with the emergency cards at the exit row; but I could not continue checking under the seats. I was asked to sign off on the preflight checklist; and I wrote that I was able to complete only half due to boarding. Once boarding was complete; a man I believe was a supervisor asked about the notation and I said I couldn't completely sign off because the check had not been completed. He told me we were going to take a delay because of it. I notified the Captain of the situation. I was met at the jetway just outside the aircraft by two women; one of whom I thought was a manager. I started to explain what had happened; and she said she already knew about it. She asked if I could complete the check and I said I would do whatever she wanted me to; but that there were now passengers onboard with their bags and other items in their seat back pockets. She offered to help check. I said I would do it but I made it clear that this was her decision to complete the check this way. The other woman in the jetway said the only alternative was to deplane passengers. They didn't want to do this so I did as I was told. I went in; she followed me and we checked under the seats from the exit row forward.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reports passenger boarding commencing before her safety and security checks have been completed. When asked to sign the preflight checklist; it is signed as half complete. This results in a delay as the Flight Attendant involved is asked to do the security checks that were not completed with passengers on board.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb; ATC asked where we were navigating to. The First Officer said GVE. We were told that wasn't on our route. ATC then cleared us to VXV and asked what our filed route was. The flight continued without any other inquiries from ATC. I then looked at the PDC and noticed a change from our filed route. The change was -FLUKY DCA246 PAUKI MOL- Whereas we were filed -GVE J42 MOL. I; the Captain; need to verify and cross check everything. Just because I'm on reduced rest doesn't excuse me of this important step. As a crew; we could have done a better job of communicating the changes to the PDC.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew deviated from cleared routing because they both missed a revised routing notice on PDC.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight Attendant informed me that passengers in Row XX were told by flight attendants numerous times to wear face covering.




Synopsis: Captain reported that the Flight Attendant told them that passengers in a specific row were not wearing face masks and were instructed to do so.
Date: 201602
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Load planning
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight departed and customer service entity reopened passenger manifest and reseated 9 passengers from coach into first-class cabin without updating [anyone]. Weights invalidated and passengers revised generating a percent Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC) of 4.0 (nose heavy).




Synopsis: Load planer reported discovering after departure that Customer Service had reseated 9 passengers from coach into first-class cabin producing a nose heavy condition.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise we noticed the aircraft yaw to the left twice for no [apparent] reason. As we looked for any clues on the third time it yawed the Captain noticed that the N1 on Engine 1 surged to about 70%; and the thrust levers were set in the detent in the cruise thrust setting; around 90%. We noticed this the third and fourth time it happened; and also noticed that the ignition kicked on momentarily; and then the N1 returned to the FADEC calculated setting in the cruise setting. These events lasted for about 5 seconds each. On the fifth surging event; the N1 decreased significantly; the ignition did not kick on; and the FADEC alternated from B to A. At this point; we were already contacting Dispatch and Maintenance. We briefed for a single engine approach and landing and discussed alternates. Dispatch advised us to proceed to a diversion airport that suited them; so we declared an emergency and deviated there. We did not end up shutting down the engine. We briefed the approach and landing and there were no further disruptions or Engine 1 events during the rest of the flight. On the landing; EICAS message 'E1-2 No Dispatched' and 'E1 Short Dispatch' appeared.The threats of this event included task saturation (executing an unplanned emergency landing and diversion) as well as trying to figure out the best course of action to respond to this engine abnormality. I believe the Captain and I did a good job executing this diversion and emergency landing. When we landed; Maintenance told us that this aircraft has had a history of FADEC issues; and that there have been unavailable parts. If this is true; I would highly recommend to the company that we fix the underlying problems with FADECs the first time whenever possible rather than simply 'defer' them or 'clear' them. I also appreciate very much our Dispatcher and his rapid response and coordination with this event.




Synopsis: When their left engine initiated repeated surges of lowered N1 the flight crew of an EMB-145 conferred with Dispatch and Maintenance and opted to declare an emergency and divert for maintenance attention.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We initially had to return to the gate before takeoff because there was a computer reset mechanical. Upon returning to the gate; while waiting for mechanics to fix the issue; a passenger told me; Flight Attendant B; that she had a headache and was feeling lightheaded and a few passengers were feeling the same way around her (Row 16). I went to Row 16 to ask people how they were feeling and to see if I smelled anything unusual. A few passengers nearby claimed to feel lightheaded and one said that he had a headache but did not know why. One of the passengers said that she felt like that because of the air vent; claimed she could smell the exhaust and fumes through the air vent. I could not smell anything and Flight Attendant C and D could not smell anything either when they walked by. I told the Captain about it and he went into the cabin to see if he could smell anything and he said he could not. After the computer reset mechanical issue was fixed; we closed the main cabin door.Then; we got the release to push back again. Then the D Flight Attendant called the front to report the strong fume odor in the aft of the cabin. The A asked the C Flight Attendant and the B Flight Attendant if we could walk through the cabin to verify the smell and as we approached Row 17 we noticed the burning acrid smell; metallic like dirty socks. The further back that we approached the stronger the smell was. The smell in the aft galley was intolerable and the D flight Attendant started vomiting. Flight Attendant C and myself started to feel nauseous; lightheaded; dizzy; itchy throat and eyes.The C Flight Attendant called the Captain and informed the issue and we headed back to the gate. When the C Flight Attendant went back to take his position to disarm doors; the same smell in the front galley was strong too. Passengers in the front of the aircraft started to complain about it and passenger seated in 1 C started to feel very nauseous but she declined medical attention. Main cabin door was opened and we deplaned passengers EMT's were waiting in the gate for any passengers that needed help. We were checked out by EMT's and transported to the hospital for a further check out.




Synopsis: A320 Flight Attendant crew reported being notified by passengers of 'burning acrid dirty socks' odor during ground delay. Fumes gradually intensified resulting in health issues among cabin crew and passengers.