elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were transferring control of a UAV from one ground control station to another ground control station. The MQ-1C was level at FL200 in a counter clockwise loiter in [restricted area]. In the process of the hand off communication was lost with the UAV. The aircraft conducted the pre planned lost link mission and proceeded to the southern edge of [restricted area] at 11;000 MSL. The aircraft remained in lost link for approximately 3 minutes before link was re-established and aircraft was commanded to FL200. During the lost link emergency event the aircraft deviated from assigned altitude approximately 1;500 feet.




Synopsis: MQ-1C UAV operator reported losing ground link with the aircraft for approximately 3 minutes; during which time the UAV deviated about 1;500 FT from assigned altitude.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ILM.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ILM
ATC / advisory: TRACON ILM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending into ILM. Expecting a Visual approach to 24. We briefed the visual approach backed up by the ILS. Enroute; ATC kept us high and we required a steep descent to the airport. ATC recognized the need for an additional vector to give us more time to descend and turned us south. ATC instructed us to heading 280 and 1600 feet. This vector brought us inside the final approach fix SUMLY. This faced us into the sun and the haze made it harder to find the airport. They asked us if we had the airport and at the time we did not. As we approached the final; I started turning final and descending. ATC issued a low altitude alert and asked if we had the airport in sight. We reported that we did and he commented that we were assigned 1600 and hadn't been cleared for the visual approach. He issued the clearance for the visual and told us to contact tower.ATC communicated the altitude deviation to us. I was preoccupied with the descent into ILM and concerned about being high on final. I was also distracted by the poor vectors inside the FAF and hazy conditions. When ATC gave us the low altitude alert; I immediately added power and started climbing to 1600 feet; until he issued the clearance for the visual approach. This put us in a position high and fast for the approach. At 1000 feet I called not stable; go around and we started the go around procedure. We went around the pattern and the second landing was uneventful.In the future I will ask for better vectors and use the ILS unless we receive a visual clearance further from the airport that allows for proper planning of the approach. Additionally; on days with impaired visibility such as haze or a setting sun; visual approaches aren't the most appropriate approach even though conditions are VMC.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR First Officer reported a low altitude alert from ATC due to a premature descent while turning final for ILM.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out enroute [4 hour flight]; lost yellow hydraulic system. After short discussion decided that returning with overweight landing was safest course.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer experiences the loss of the Yellow Hydraulic system during climb out.  The crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GFK.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D GFK
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given clearance to take off RWY 35R; I was told to make right traffic and follow the traffic in the upwind. When traffic in upwind was stated; the call for the upwind sounded muffled. I assumed he meant the traffic in the downwind which was in sight and my response to the controller was 'We will follow the traffic.' Upon passing 1300 feet; I turned crosswind and continued my climb up to 1600 feet. Controller gave a traffic alert and told me to turn south and the other aircraft to turn east. The flight was completed with no further incident.




Synopsis: Student Pilot misunderstood Air Traffic Control instructions after takeoff.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the gate in ZZZ; almost ready for door closure and gate departure when we get a Lavatory Smoke warning. I called back to the aft cabin flight attendants and they tell me a passenger just exited one of the aft lavs and a cloud of smoke followed him. When confronted; the passenger denied smoking or vaping; and claimed the smoke was present before he entered the lavatory.I called for a customer service manager to come remove the passenger; and the manager; after talking with the passenger; informed me that he still denied smoking and that he was refusing to leave the airplane.After conferring with the manager and his supervisor; and confirming events with the aft cabin flight attendants; I decided to have the entire plane disembark and re-board without the offending passenger.As passengers were deplaning; the suspected smoker stopped at the L1 door and demanded his money back. From the cockpit; I instructed this gentleman to leave my airplane. He refused and was belligerent. I closed the cockpit door and called for law enforcement. After everyone deplaned; we re-boarded and left for ZZZ1.In the current economic/pandemic environment; the airline has been force to offer really low fares.  I feel this means some of our passengers are not frequent flyers and may not understand what's expected of them.I feel like the customer service manager initially was reluctant to have the passenger removed; due to the passenger claiming he hadn't smoked in the lavatory. The aft cabin flight attendants saw him step in the lavatory just prior to the smoke alarm being triggered. After I continued to advocate for his removal; the customer service team did as I requested. I'm not sure what was initially said to the suspected smoker; but when safety is involved; there shouldn't be an option of letting the passenger remain onboard.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that prior to gate departure a lavatory smoke warning occurred. The passenger allegedly smoking in the lav refused to leave and was ordered off by the Captain.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gear Pins
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was just made aware of a maintenance violation that occurred on Aircraft X. I was assigned a tire change on this aircraft with other AMT's. I installed the pins as required and documented that action in the log book. The routine tire change was all but routine. The equipment required for the tire change proved to be a rather distracting event. Two things; the first being there was no nitrogen in any of the bottles on the nitrogen cart and secondly it took three jacks before we found one that worked. I pulled two of the three pins the right main and the nose gear and left the left main gear. I'm really not sure what I was thinking at that moment other than let's hurry up and get these people out of here and inadvertently missed the other pin. I know it is my responsibility when it comes to correctly addressing the log book and all the associated maintenance for which I take accomplishment for. However due to the fiasco in the tire change I felt rushed and lost track of what I believed to be the proper amount of pins that were to be pulled.


Second narrative: I was made aware of a potential violation that I may have committed. I assisted in the tire change on Aircraft X. The tire was changed and only one AMT took accomplishment for the task performed. I was unaware of the requirement until now that all persons accomplishing maintenance task must take credit for doing so.


Synopsis: Two maintenance technicians reported that after a tire change on an MD80 they neglected to remove one of the landing gear pins.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During takeoff felt nose coming off ground about 20 knots prior to rotation. Aircraft was light and only 85 passengers. Had to apply nose down pressure on stick; very unusual for the Airbus (I only have 1;400 hours; 2 years in the fleet).Guessing only: Trim setting/CG wrong?


Second narrative: On the takeoff roll after 80 knots but well before V1 I noticed the normal bumps and jolts from the nose gear tire smoothening out; like it was getting lighter. I saw the nose begin to lift slowly off the ground and brought it to my CA's (Captain's) attention. He wasn't pulling up on the side stick and I think he even started pushing it down but we were rotated approximately 10-20 knots before V1.The close out TOW CG was farther forward than normal; but not out of bounds as far as I could tell.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported the nose of the aircraft became light approximately 20 knots below V1; possibly indicating a problem with CG or trim setting calculations.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at FL370 [the] Purser called and stated passengers had noticed [a] burning smell in [the] rear part of the cabin. She was instructed to check out the area. She did not notice anything at the time. A few minutes later she called and said that multiple passengers were again smelling something electrical burning. The decision was made to divert. Dispatch was contacted and the diversion went without incident. Fire crew met the aircraft and observed no external issues; then boarded the aircraft to confirm the cabin was safe. Shut down and disembarking was normal from that point on.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that during cruise a Flight Attendant notified them of a 'burning smell' in the passenger cabin; which resulted in an uneventful diversion.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X ZZZ to ZZZ1 Divert to ZZZ2We were flying along at FL340 when the master caution went off and I called identify cancel. ADS1 fail; spoiler fault; tat 1 fail; and Speed Break fail. In night IMC headed into weather. We started to run QRH procedures which led us to turn off the auto pilot and descend out of RVSM. We also lost both flight directors; both flight path vectors and LNAV would intermittently fail and revert to roll mode but auto pilot was not engaged. We called for vectors and lower altitudes and worked to complete all QRH. It seemed the trim was running slower than normal. This led me to believe there might be other systems affected as non of the QRH procedures stated to expect the trim to run slower or to lose your flight director or FPV. I haven't even seen the FPV fail in the sim. We notified the Flight Attendant's and then the Pax that we were going to divert to ZZZ2. I requested priority handling because we were uncertain of the root of the problem and if it would get worse and if there was anything else effected. We had to burn gas so not to not land over weight. We set up for a long straight in visual approach to ZZZ2 with a FLAP FULL landing as per the QRH. We got and addition 8 EICAS messages on the ground on taxi in and even more on parking. Maintenance met the plane. While headed to ZZZ2 we had some potential course and altitude deviations of up to 400 ft. The flight was completed safely. I called Dispatch and then Scheduling.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported numerous equipment failures while enroute and resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJT.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Tower SJT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Approaching SJT I listened to the ATIS on 128.45.  The ATIS stated that the Tower was closed at 21:00 local and gave NOTAM information; but no weather.  I requested weather for SJT through the ACARS; and received the XA:53 local weather.  I noticed that the Commercial 1 approach charts noted that 128.45 was the ATIS and '(ASOS when Twr Inop)'.  I was curious why there was no weather broadcast on the ATIS.  I decided to contact SJT Tower to ask why the weather info was missing; expecting it to be an oversight.  The Tower answered; gave me the current weather; and stated that the funding had been requested for the ASOS to broadcast on the ATIS frequency; but that it had not yet been approved.  This means that the note on the Commercial 1 charts is in error; and that there is no weather information on the ATIS frequency when the Tower is closed.  This may not be a problem for ACARS equipped aircraft; but if the ACARS is deferred; and Tower is closed; it may be difficult or impossible to get current weather for SJT at a low altitude.  Perhaps the company could figure out an alternative means of obtaining current SJT weather when the Tower is closed and ACARS is deferred; and letting the flight crews know on the briefing pages; as the current briefing page states 'ASOS available via ATIS frequency' and is not correct.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reports that the note with the ATIS frequency for SJT stating that the 128.45 is for ASOS when the Tower is closed is incorrect according to the Tower Controller.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: BN-2A Mk. III/Trislander
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I was] working a combined Sector; no D-Side and no A-Side. I did not ask for a D-Side. My printer had run out of paper and there was no one to assist; trying to change paper while working sector was obviously a bad idea. My Supervisor was unable to change [the paper] and I did not ask for a D-Side. A Trislander was level at 140 and a Chancellor was stopped at 130 for traffic. I needed to get the Trislander down to 090 so I turned the Chancellor to a heading of 135 degrees. Based on their history and their proximity to each other; I thought it would be safe to discontinue vertical separation. I climbed the Chancellor to 150 and descended the Trislander to 090. When I realized it was not going to work; I issued turns that did not work because they were not given in a timely manner. I issued a 25 degree right turn to the Trislander and a 15 degree right turn to the Chancellor but it obviously did not work. I should have asked for a D-Side. The Supervisor should have been paying attention and realized that I needed a D-Side and so did the sector next to me. This happens all the time; Sector is going down the drain but no one is paying attention. It is about percentages of people plugged in and those on break. I should have asked for a D-side. I should not have tried to change my paper on the sector while I was busy. Supervisors need to pay attention more.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event; listing workload and lack of supervisory attention as causal factors; also admitting to not requesting D-Side assistance and electing to change printer paper adding to the distractions.