elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Location: FDK.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FDK
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was taking a student on his first cross country night flight toward his private pilot license. With over 35 hours of flight time at this airport; I entrusted the student to taxi to the runway. The aircraft was equipped with a G1000 system which was still adjusted to 'day' brightness. After monitoring the initial completion of the taxi sequence; I proceeded to attempt to adjust the brightness to night mode. Not being very familiar with the system; I spent nearly a minute of head-down time looking for the adjustment knob. When I looked up again; we were on the active runway and I advised him to immediately taxi off of it. This occurred at a runway hot spot which is poorly lit and not adequately signed. Our taxi clearance called to taxi via E - A - B - cross runway 23 to runway 30. This was read back; but the student missed the right turn onto B and entered the runway. There is no sign indicating the location of taxiway B. I regained control of the situation and the rest of the flight continued without issue. After the flight we reviewed runway hot spots and hold short lines. No aircraft was landing or on the runway at the time. This has not occurred since.This issue could be prevented by correcting the hot spot with signage and lighting.




Synopsis: An instructor reported the student pilot taxied onto FDK Runway 30 at Taxiway A because he missed the signage at the Taxiway A and B intersections which is a hot spot with poor signage and lighting for night operations.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was planning to fly from the ZZZ airport to my home on the lake a distance of approximately 5 NM. I was solo; and did a weight and balance and determined I needed 45 pounds of ballast in the nose anchor compartment; and confirmed it was there. The winds were very light out of the south and I took off on Runway XX and turned towards my home. I went to do a 'splash and dash' on the lake before going to the house so after climbing to about 500 ft. I reduced power and did my pre-water landing checklist. On touchdown I immediately did a water loop with no injury to me or any other property; and minor damage to the plane. I must have let the nose get too low; and possibly was hit by an unnoticed boat wake. Since I had lake specific recurrency training on [Date] and [Date1]; have done [Number] water landings; [Number1] in the last year and [Number2] in the last 90 days I do not know what else I should have done.I did notify the tower that I had a problem and was heading back on the water to the seaplane ramp. They called the fire department and asked them to launch a boat to assist if needed. When I got to the seaplane ramp their launch vehicle; trailer; and boat were on the left side of the ramp. I tried to call the tower to ask them to have the equipment moved; but could not raise them. I then tried to get up the right side of the ramp; and the right main gear went off the ramp and was damaged. I feel personnel should not block runways; taxiways; or seaplane ramps when trying to help.




Synopsis: Seaplane pilot reported that during touchdown; the plane did a water loop; possibly as a result of the nose getting too low.
Date: 201509
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just before Flight Attendant boarding a passenger came up to me and asked about his seats. He was traveling with his wife and 3 young children. His 2 youngest were twin girls approximately 4 months old and were lap children. He asked me if his seats were correct and I told him no he could not be seated in a single row because there were not enough oxygen masks and took his seats to the customer service representative. I then relayed what happened to the crew when the Captain said; actually for this flight this is fine. Since we are only flying 16000 feet and below the oxygen masks will never deploy and therefore they can all sit together. I then asked him if he was sure. He said he was absolutely sure so I let the agent and the family know that the Captain said that since we were flying below 16000 feet [they] could sit together. I am still not certain I did the appropriate thing in this situation. This procedure is not in our manuals and we need clarification if this is correct.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant informed a family with three small children they cannot all sit in the same row due to oxygen requirements. When the Captain was informed he stated that actually it would be OK on this flight since they would not be flying above 16;000 feet. The family traveled in the same row.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am a solo student currently working to get my Private Pilot Certificate. I was flying back to ZZZ1. I needed to Divert due to [weather] at ZZZ. I chose to divert to ZZZ which was quite busy at time of incident due to bad weather at ZZZ1. I approached ZZZ noting the high volume of traffic in the pattern. Traffic was flowing to Runway 12 making it the main landing runway at the time of the incident. As traffic was unusually high; I made the call to remain North of ZZZ until the pattern had cleared up. I did exactly that; while making all the necessary advisory calls on the frequency. As I exited my hold to join the left downwind for Runway 12; I noted the aircraft I will be following was Aircraft Y (I received this information using an in cockpit ADS-B receiver). Upon reviewing traffic info on ADS-B receiver I was looking out of the window to try to make a visual reference with the traffic I was following. Unfortunately I was not immediately able to make visual reference with Aircraft Y however I did verify adequate separation using ADS-B. As I joined the left downwind for Runway 12 I diverted my attention to any possible hazards coming from the within the traffic pattern (causing me to divert my attention to the left). As I did this and have determined the left side of me to be clear I made the call to enter the left downwind for Runway 12. At this point I realized there was a low wing twin engine aircraft about 150 ft. above me heading in the opposite direction (upwind). I immediately realized it was Aircraft Y I was following. He had made a 180 degree turn from his downwind to attempt to rejoin. Although while doing that he flew right into the flow of traffic in the pattern. I quickly called up on the radio to try to understand if he had seen me. He replied something along the lines of we had you visual - all good).




Synopsis: C-172 Pilot reported a near mid air collision while on approach to landing following a diversion caused by thunderstorms.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Arriving SEA; ATC cleared us to follow aircraft ahead to visual approach 34L.  We were given 170kts to final fix due to ATC spacing us just over 3 miles behind a B737.  I was Pilot Monitoring; the First Officer the Pilot Flying had our plane on autopilot using heading select and vertical speed to navigate onto the localizer and glideslope.Just as the plane was joining the localizer; a mild buffeting was felt followed by a rapid roll in direction of the turn. Aural warning 'Bank Angle' annunciated.  The First Officer immediately disconnected the autopilot and reduced the bank angle to normal parameters.  The rest of the approach was uneventful.On visual approaches; especially with close spacing; fly above the path of the preceding aircraft.


Second narrative: While on dogleg to final for RWY 34L; descending to 2;400 feet MSL following preceding B737 by 3.5 NM encountered wake turbulence while on autopilot.  As autopilot initiated turn to join the localizer the aircraft encountered the wake turbulence causing a rapid roll to the right (in the direction of the turn).  The aircraft rolled past 30 degrees of bank and an aural warning 'bank angle' sounded.  The Pilot Flying recognized the excursion and disengaged the autopilot and reduced the bank angle to normal range.  Pilot Flying continued the approach and landed uneventfully.Consider staying above preceding aircraft's altitude/flight path to avoid wake turbulence or increase range between aircraft.


Synopsis: B737-900 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence on final approach to SEA in trail of a B737.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Control Valves
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I troubleshot a #2 engine anti-ice valve discrepancy on an A320 aircraft. I reactivated the valve for troubleshooting and determined that there was good voltage to the valve. I manually actuated the valve and noticed a sticking in the 'Closed' position and determined the valve was bad. We did not have a valve in stock so I was told to defer the discrepancy. I mistakenly deactivated the valve according to MEL 30-27-01A instead of MEL 30-27-01D. At this point in time I do not know how I made this error. My only thought is that due to poor lighting in the cockpit I mistook the 'D' for an 'A'. Aircrew noticed improper anti-ice valve indication on engine start. I did not thoroughly review which MEL had been applied to the aircraft. Proper MEL was applied [after a] gate turnback. Suggest [I] thoroughly review and make sure I understand which MEL has been applied to the aircraft.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports he mistakenly deactivated #2 engine anti-ice valve according to MEL 30-27-01A; instead of MEL 30-27-01A. Flight crew returned the A320 aircraft to gate after noticing improper anti-ice valve indication during engine start.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Traffic was exchanged by ZZZ Approach between myself; at 6;500 feet; and a RJ at 6;000 feet. Soon after I did get the traffic in sight; at my right front and 500 feet below. The RJ suddenly reported an RA and 'climbing'. I observed the traffic pitch upward. I began a left turn to avoid. The Controller firmly questioned the actions of the RJ numerous times. As I began a descent; I observed the RJ suddenly pitch downward.  I stopped my descent. Traffic passed ahead of me at less than a mile and maybe 200 ft. below.  Controller questioned me about the incident. Appears that the RA was incorrectly interpreted.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot reported an RA event that required evasive action.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During taxi in onto the north side of Ramp 3 in Atlanta; we were cleared to enter on the left side of the ramp (east) and taxi to the gate. As we were taxiing into the ramp I looked to the left and noticed several vehicles yielding to us. Lights were on. I called clear left and just before the First Officer was to say something; I noticed an object moving from the right in my peripheral vision. I looked up and saw a tug pulling 2 baggage carts and the operator of the vehicle texting on a cell phone and heading at a fast speed directly toward us on the north roadway. I slammed on the brakes bringing the aircraft to a stop with the nose just over the entrance. The driver just happened to look up and slammed on the brakes making a hard right turn back into the ramp. It's amazing the driver didn't flip the tug over. Driver missed hitting us by about 15 FT. Had I not stopped and/or had the driver not looked up; would have struck the nose of the aircraft and may have been seriously injured or perhaps killed. Driver then started laughing and drove on out and started texting again. I continued taxiing into the gate with no further issues. Taxi speed was normal; scans were normal; sterile cockpit and procedures adhered to. Jumpseater on the jumpseat made no comment even though I insured that he speak up if he saw anything. 'It's just the way things are here the ATL' [it] is becoming the normal acceptance of this type of behavior. This is a threat that is intimidating to crews. It speaks of futility of reporting events because of multiple issues regarding philosophies of the airport management. 1) Management needs to enforce safety policies with real consequences. 2) Law enforcement needs to patrol these areas constantly. 3) There needs to be a commitment on the behalf of baggage handlers and tug drivers to insist that safety always is the primary goal when operating in a dangerous area. I have been told by numerous tug drivers and ramp agents that management pressures them into hurrying between concourses to deliver baggage because of the costs involved. They feel threatened if they don't comply. Change these issues and maybe these types of events won't occur in the future. As it is now it appears a serious accident is imminent.




Synopsis: Regional jet Captain reports a near collision with a tug pulling baggage carts at the entrance to ramp three at ATL. The tug driver was reportedly texting while driving.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff Aft Flight attendant called to inform us of a cabin odor. This was the first flight of the day and it rained all night so we thought it might dissipate after a short time. We leveled at FL190 and were in need of Engine Heat. With that the smell returned and was stronger. We could smell it in the cockpit; my eyes started to burn and the First Officer said he had a headache. We did the QRH procedure. Informed the dispatcher via ACARS. Our destination was so we proceeded to destination. Short hold for sequence then landed. At the gate I met with the crew and all of us had symptoms; so we called EMS to evaluate our conditions; which led to a trip to the hospital for checkup. EMS personnel entered the aircraft at the gate and had to leave because of burning eyes and throat. Evaluation dictated not to fly for 2 days. I've had cabin odor before but this was the worst by far.


Second narrative: After the 10;000 feet level off announcement I went towards the back of the aircraft to begin the service. 1/2 way down the aisle I smelled a strong 'dirty sock' odor which got stronger as I got closer to the back galley. The 'B' flight attendant asked if I smelled the odor; which I confirmed. 'A' flight attendant was notified who in turn notified the flight deck. Over the course of maybe the next 15-20 minutes the smell subsided somewhat. (Never completely went away); but 1/2 way through the flight the odor came back even stronger than initially; this time more irritating. The flight deck was notified again by the 'A' flight attendant. This time they stated it was noted in the cockpit as well.  I developed a headache and sore throat and eyes. Very strong pungent 'dirty sock' odor in cabin during takeoff (it dissipated somewhat-never went away-just lessened) but came back even stronger midway through the flight. Do not know the cause or how to prevent such an occurrence.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew and flight attendants detected a foul odor during takeoff and in flight. The odor subsided initially then returned even stronger. The flight continued to destination where the crew was taken to a hospital for evaluation and released.