elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While de-icing at the gate F/A (Flight Attendant) C and B sitting in their aft jumpseats. Received an excessive amount of fumes which forced them to cover their faces and forced C FA into the Lav where she began to dry heave. It wasn't until after the first service in the main cabin did both F/A's start feeling symptoms. Captain was contacted and Medlink was notified. A doctor on board was requested. I asked that C FA sit in a different jumpseat so as to be closer to the doctor seating in FC and for the paramedics to meet her as soon as the door opened.




Synopsis: B737-800 Flight Attendant reported experiencing physiological symptoms which started shortly after the aircraft was deiced.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Signing in
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Dispatcher came in for scheduled shift to a desk that is normally a turnover desk for the midnight dispatcher. The dispatcher who worked the overnight shift was sent home 1 hour early due to rest requirements so they could work their assigned shift on the same day starting at XA45. A relief dispatcher was watching over the desk but was never given a proper pass-down - they were just informed by the overnight dispatcher that 'everything looked good'.Once the assigned dispatcher signed into the dispatch monitor; they noticed an abnormally high number for flights allocated for the desk for that day. The dispatcher realized that he had numerous flights in the air; as well as; some waiting for deicing procedures in hubs and outstation locations. Sabre Plot was updated with estimated off time information for these flight that were in the air or on the taxiways. Dispatcher allocation for flights on that specific desk showed unrealistic number of flights. Total amount of flights allocated for this desk was 83. 24 flights were in the air at the time the scheduled dispatcher was signing into the computer system.Operational control was reestablished / maintained once dispatcher was fully signed in to the computer systems and briefed on the day's weather events. Flights waiting for fuel load changes were done after dispatcher familiarization was complete. Daily flight allocation should be completed by someone who has worked the overnight shift before; and not just once in their time while working at this company. Workload on 80 plus flights is extremely tough to manage. Positive operational control should have been maintained / not compromised by not sending the overnight dispatcher home early to be legal for next scheduled shift.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports being assigned a desk that is being 'watched over' by another Dispatcher that has not received a proper turnover; due to the originally assigned Dispatcher being sent home early to be legal for his next shift. Upon signing in it is noticed that the desk is monitoring over 80 flights; both in the air and on the ground. Operational control was reestablished.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain and I were making a reposition flight. When I picked up our IFR clearance from Ground; one of the fixes in our route was BUZZI intersection. I however mistakenly put BUZZY intersection and was not aware of this till later.After we departed; I believe we were either in the last segment of our climb or had just leveled off at our final altitude when Center instructed us to fly to 'BUZZI'. So in our GPS we selected the fix that I had put in there and selected direct to. Center noticed we were not flying the direction we were supposed to be and that is when we figured out our mistake and took corrective action.




Synopsis: First Officer reported that they entered the incorrect spelling of a fix and started to fly to the incorrect way point and were challenged by ATC about being off course. Pilots then realized their mistake and corrected the course.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft returned to ZZZ for a loss of Cabin Pressurization. Altitude Alert sounded to notify crew of an emergency. Climbing through FL230; lost the cabin pressurization. Altitude Alert sounded. Captain advised First Officer (F/O) to run the check list; Captain had aircraft and radios. Requested immediate descent to MSA. Was given confirmation to descend to 14;000 ft; then continue descent to 10;000 ft. F/O and myself determined that we did not have Auto and STBY modes for cabin pressurization. For the safety of the crew and passengers; we requested a priority landing ; because I was not sure if I could maintain cabin pressurization in the Manual Mode. We returned to ZZZ; I was advised to do an operational test of the outflow valve in the manual mode by Maintenance Control. I performed a ops test of the outflow valve in the manual mode; and the ops test passed. Maintenance Control advised me that I was to MEL and DMI the cabin pressurization and dispatch the aircraft. I dispatched the aircraft under MEL.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the pressurization system on a B737 was inoperative in auto and standby modes.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Traffic Management
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An Airport Vehicle asked if they could get onto Runway XXL to clear signs. I clarified if they needed go to the approach end of Runway XYR or the approach end of Runway XXL. They stated the approach end of Runway XYR. I instructed the Airport Vehicle to proceed onto the approach end of Runway XYR; and hold short of Runway XZC at all times. I received a correct read back of the hold short instructions for Runway XZC. A short time later; I attempted to reach out to the Airport Vehicle to reiterate the hold short instructions and ensure they would give way to an Airbus that I was initially going to take down Runway XYR. I did not get an answer from the Airport Vehicle. I then changed the taxi instructions for Aircraft Y to stay on the taxiway; cross Runway XZL and hold short of Runway XZC. Once I ensured that Aircraft Y was holding short of Runway XZC; and the Airport Vehicle did not appear to be moving forward; I looked down to finish processing some flight progress strips. At that time; the Supervisor on the Watch Desk asked to verify that the Airport Vehicle was holding short Runway XZC. I said he was supposed to be; keyed up and reiterated the hold short instructions. The Supervisor instructed Local Control to issue a go around for Aircraft X. The Airport Vehicle appeared to just cross the runway edge of Runway XZC on Runway XYR. They immediately reversed and exited Runway XZC; remaining on Runway XYR. Soon afterwards; I issued the brasher warning.Next time I will ensure I reiterate the hold short instructions when a vehicle is in close proximity to the active runway.


Second narrative: An Airport Vehicle was operating on Runway XYR; a closed runway; and instructed to hold short of Runway XZC. Aircraft X was on a short final for Runway XZC; when I noticed the Airport Vehicle was entering into Runway XZC on Runway XYR. I instructed Local Control to send Aircraft X around; which they did.More vigilance is recommended from airport vehicles.


Synopsis: ATC Controllers reported an airport vehicle did not hold short of the runway for landing traffic.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
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: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When we attempted to lower the landing gear on final nothing happened. After we unsuccessfully cycled the landing gear lever three times we elected to do a go around and trouble shoot. After checking in the Flight Manual; checking for popped circuit breakers; and consulting with Maintenance we prepared for our return and successfully performed the Gravity Extension checklist on a long final.  During the conversation with Maintenance Control we were told that the same thing had happened eleven days previously. In our maintenance history the last entry went back thirteen days but there was no entry for the previous gear malfunction. This knowledge could have been quite beneficial. Our initial fuel load had us planned to land with 4.8 thousand pounds of fuel. Luckily we had increased this by 1;000 pounds prior to departure. Had we not increased the fuel load we would have had very little fuel time left to further troubleshoot our problem if the gravity extension was not successful.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew was unable to lower their landing gear; initiated a go around; successfully conducted a gravity extension procedure and returned for a safe landing. Their fuel remaining could have compromised more extensive trouble shooting had the gravity extension not proven successful. A previous identical failure some 11 days before was not annotated in the logbook or in the flight crew's maintenance briefing message provided for flight planning.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MUFH.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center MUFH
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After passing URSUS and en-route direct EMABU; ATC queried us and asked if were direct UCL. I did not see UCL on our flight plan; so I asked ATC for direct EMABU; which was approved. During preflight; a partial up-link occurred. I input the SID; and manually closed the discontinuity. I then verified the route IAW procedure by reading the way points from the computer and the First Officer verified the route from the paperwork. We both missed UCL. Do not allow distractions to allow a proper verified of the flight plan entered in the FMC. PERIOD. Agent; passenger; and Gen Dec issues got in the way; and we started over three times. Unacceptable to our part. Lesson re-learned.




Synopsis: Pilot reported discontinuity on the route due to distractions when they were putting the route into the computer.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took off from a [foreign] airfield . During the climb phase my co-pilot and I detected the presence of smoke and vapors in the cockpit. We made the determination that a issue existed ran the appropriate checklists and emergency memory items. We then prepared for a return to field which was executed without incident; once on the ground passengers were evacuated from the aircraft and the aircraft was secured. During the approach to landing phase it was discovered that the microphone portion of the captains oxygen mask was inoperative. This led to some troubleshooting in the air regarding crew communications. The microphone issue was solved utilizing hand signals and slightly amplified aural communications and commands.Perception of the issue utilizing the sense of smell alerted the flight crew to the problem at hand. Judgment from the Captain and Co-Pilot led to the return to airfield as the safest course of action. No incident or accident occurred nor was any damage sustained to persons or property.The crew communication portion was a contributing factor that was mitigated due to experienced flight crew and standard operating procedures.




Synopsis: Flight crew detected smoke and fumes after takeoff and returned to the departure airport where the aircraft was evacuated.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RHV.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D RHV
ATC / advisory: Tower RHV
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was entering right traffic from the north. I was midfield downwind when I heard something impact my right wing. I looked right and saw a black blur. I called the tower and reported a bird strike. I continued with a normal landing. After landing I inspected the aircraft and noticed damage to the leading edge and skin. With no bird debris on the wing; I believe I had a drone strike.




Synopsis: Pilot believed he had a bird strike but after landing and inspecting the aircraft determined it was a collision with a drone.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I went to retrieve a pressure gauge for the Aircraft X oxygen system and went into supply. The drawer I opened was in location cabinet XYZ for the pressure gauge. I found the gauge I needed and when I went to close the drawer I saw another gauge there that is used for the hydraulic reservoir cap with gauge attached in the same location as a gauge we use for oxygen. This is a major safety concern with petroleum products like hydraulic fluid being near oxygen tooling and equipment can cause combustion in the right conditions.The oxygen equipment needs to be segregated from ANY hydraulic or petroleum product at all times.




Synopsis: Technician reported discovering oxygen  gauges intermixed with hydraulic gauges in the company tool room in the same drawer.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying VFR at 7;500 FT AGL while utilizing flight following; I declared an emergency because my engine sputtered. I immediately changed from right fuel tank to left tank. After ATC advised the nearest airport was 10 miles away; I landed safely and the engine never stopped until I turned the engine off. I visually checked that the fuel was very low. Refueled and topped off both tanks; started the plane; performed preflight inspection. The fuel gauge indicated that both tanks were full as I had visually observed. I took off and circled the field 2 or 3 times to be sure that I had experienced faulty gauge or loose ground wire. While refueling; I spoke by phone to my Mechanic who assured me that what I had experienced was a faulty gauge or loose ground wire and the plane should operate correctly to continue. After departing; I flew the aircraft on a 10 minute flight; landed and rechecked the fuel in both tanks. While on the ground I performed pre-flight check and all systems seemed good. Flew to destination without incident and did observe normal decrease of fuel from left tank. No recurrences in route and landed safely. A few days later; an A&P Mechanic inspected the aircraft; de-fueled both tanks and determined that the plane had a faulty fuel sensor. Parts were ordered. The plane will be repaired in a few days.




Synopsis: DA40 pilot experiences a rough running engine at 7;500 FT; switches fuel selector from the right tank to the left; and diverts to the nearest airport. Low fuel and an inaccurate fuel gauge is determined to be the cause.