elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll after 80 kts; the crew noticed 102 psi on the #2 engine oil pressure indicator but decided to continue based on our takeoff briefing. After a safe altitude was reached; crew contacted Maintenance Control and with their concurrence it was decided to continue the flight since engine operating parameters had returned to the normal range. A few minutes after leveling at FL380 the 'DOOR PAX AFT OPEN' was annunciated on the EICAS along with the triple chime. Checking the status page; crew discovered the door 2L was indicating red. We then followed the QRH procedure after which we decided that a diversion was the safest course of action. We [advised ATC] and landed with Fire-Rescue standing by. After landing; Fire-Rescue reported no visible aircraft damage but that the vent flap for door 2L appeared to be pushed in. We taxied to the gate; logged the discrepancies in the logbook and called Maintenance Control to discuss our observations with them.


Second narrative: On departure roll and after 80 kts; we noticed 102 psi on the #2 ENG but decided to continue based on our takeoff briefing. After reaching a safe altitude we contacted Maintenance Control and decided with the concurrence of Maintenance Control to continue the flight because the engine parameters returned to the normal range. A few moments after leveling at FL380; a DOOR PAX AFT OPEN WARNING was annunciated on the EICAS. Checking the status page revealed door 2L was indicating RED. We then followed the aircraft's QRH procedures after which we made the decision that diverting was the safest course of action. We [advised ATC] and performed a landing with Fire-Rescue standing by. Upon landing; Fire-Rescue reported no visible damage to the aircraft but that it appeared the vent flap for door 2L was pushed in. We taxied to the gate without incident. Logged the discrepancies in the logbook and called Maintenance Control to orally summarize our observations to them.


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported receiving a DOOR PAX AFT OPEN alert. A check of the status page revealed door 2L was indicating red. Crew diverted as a precaution. Post-flight inspection revealed that the vent flap for door 2L was pushed in.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On check in with Denver Center; while descending via the NIXX3 RNAV Arrival; I was told that 'Denver is landing south'. When I asked what runway to expect; Denver center responded that 'we do not assign runways anymore; Denver Approach assigns your runway'.  I had not been handed off to approach when the aircraft was overhead JPAGE; still without a runway assignment.  Because I was coming from the southeast; I made the decision to fly the Runway 17 transition.  When I was finally handed off to approach control I informed them on initial check in that I had not yet received a runway assignment and that I was flying the 17 L/R transition.  The Approach Controller was noticeably irritated and stated; 'you are landing Runway 16R' then gave us a westerly heading and altitude to descend to.  Based on the overheard communications from other aircraft arriving to Denver; there was much confusion on what STAR arrival transitions to fly.  It is my understanding that; without further clarification from ATC Approach; I should have treated JPAGE as a 'clearance limit' and entered the hold upon arrival. I decided against that drastic measure.  This is yet an additional negative trend that I have observed upon arrival to Denver that should be addressed. Is this a recent change of procedures between Denver approach and Denver Center?




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot landing DEN reported Denver Center advised them they had to wait until communicating with Denver TRACON to receive an arrival runway which caused confusion and uncertainty as to which transition to fly. The reporter heard other arriving aircraft experience the same confusion with Denver TRACON over the correct route to fly.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
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: B767-300 and 300 ER
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During our approach we were conducting an ILS approach. We were following a heavy 767. The weather was reporting light snow; calm winds; and a visibility of 3 SM. The aircraft preceding the 767 had to use the entire runway to stop and taxi off; which caused tower to send the heavy 767 around. We were about 5 NM behind the heavy 767. When I heard the heavy 767 go around I went ahead and briefed the go around procedure with the CA since I expected there to be a possibility of hitting its wake. The entire approach was stable; and the 1000 ft call was made; to which I responded 'stable.' At about 900 ft AGL we hit the wake from the heavy 767; which caused us to [rock] back and forth; and have wide airspeed variations. I called for a go around since I did not know how much worse it may get. Going around allowed us to power out of the wake and leave it before the situation got any worse. There were no other significant events after the go around.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported executing a go-around on final approach after encountering wake turbulence in trail of a heavy B767 that had executed a go-around as well.
Date: 202101
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X called for push and were instructed to give way to Aircraft Y pushing from [an adjacent gate]. As the Aircraft Y was pulling up to the top of the ramp; the Aircraft X pushed in front of the Aircraft Y; cutting the aircraft off. The Aircraft Y had to stop abruptly. Ramp Controller had to make adjustments to the push instructions for both aircraft and also advised the Ramp Services representative in [Operations Control]. The representative will contact the gate supervisor and will advise. Both flights taxied out shortly thereafter without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported a near-collision occurred on the ramp in EWR with two aircraft pushing back from adjacent gates.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I left [before sun rise] and was flying for about an hour when I had a runaway trim. The auto pilot was out in the airplane and deferred per the MEL and I was therefore having to hand fly the airplane. I was using mainly manual trim throughout the flight fine tuning the airplane. I decided to use the electric trim and I noticed that it was sticking and so I stopped using it. I reached over to get something off of the seat next to me and I looked back and noticed I was in a dive. The electric trim was running down and the nose dropped. I tried to disconnect the trim with the red disconnect button but it didn't work. I then searched for the circuit breaker. In the time it took for me to find the breaker and try to continue to fly I lost 700 feet and turned just over 90 degrees. I immediately climbed back up and turned back on course. ATC asked me 'So are you heading back to ZZZ?' I told them no and said that I had a trim problem and I thought it was the attitude indicator too but I thought about it and it was just the trim and me turning while looking down in the airplane. I suggest that I keep my eyes outside if it is VMC like it was therefore I wouldn't have turned as much. Also if I had known exactly where the circuit breaker was for the trim then it wouldn't have taken as long to get it offline.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot cruising at 9;000 FT reports runaway trim; resulting in a 700 foot altitude loss and a 90 degree turn before the electric trim circuit breaker can be located and pulled. The autopilot was not being used at the time.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; 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 Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departure from ZZZ a strong electrical smoke smell was noted and the Captain's MFD [Multi-function Display] flickered and then went blank; masks were donned and we ran the smoke fire or fume checklist [notified ATC] and returned to ZZZ.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported strong electrical smoke smell on departure accompanied by Captain's MFD failure.
Date: 201908
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger headphones frequently block access to the aisle. Passengers hang their iPads on tray tables. The headphone cords block access to the aisle. Headphone cords have tripped passengers. On one of my flights; a cord got tangled around a nurse that was trying to get to the aisle to assist during a medical emergency; so she did not get to the passenger. Instead; she blocked my access down the aisle to assist the passenger. It is very common for passengers in aisle seats to share headphones across the aisle. The cord across the aisle has tripped me; as well as other flight attendants and passengers. A policy could prohibit passengers from hanging iPads on tray tables and having connected headphones that block access to the aisle. A policy could also prohibit passengers from passing any cords; including headphone cords; across the aisle.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that passenger headphone chords often block the aircraft aisle.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During taxi-out; IP (Instructor Pilot) saw a turtle on Taxiway Bravo between Lima and B3; continuing North to the grass and possibly to Runway 9L/27R. After ensuring no collision hazard existed with his aircraft; IP reported turtle to Ground; who sent a vehicle. While holding short of the runway; IP observed the vehicle retrieve the turtle.FOD comes in many shapes and sizes; and pilots must always be on the alert.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported a wildlife taxi hazard on a taxiway.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When we checked on with...approach while on the...arrival; we were assigned an airspeed of 250 kts or better.  We maintained 290 kts until descending below 10000 feet at which time we maintained 250 kts.  [Airport] was landing to the north.  ATC turned us to a heading of 090 which was going to set us up for about a 15 NM final for landing on the ILS 36R.  While on the base leg of the approach; we began slowing to 180 kts in order to begin configuring for landing.  ATC questioned what speed we were flying.  I reported 180 kts and the controller informed us that we should not have slowed without telling him that we were slowing down.  I questioned if we had an assigned speed to which he responded that we were expected to maintain 250 kts until told to slow.Being turned on base for a 15 NM final; it is necessary to begin slowing down in order to configure the airplane and be stable by 1000 feett.  Since [ATC] normally has us slowed back to 170 or slower by this point and it was necessary to begin slowing in order to land the airplane safely; I did not even consider that the...approach controller would still want us at 250 kts as we approached the turn onto the localizer in IMC.  Technically; ATC was correct that we were assigned 250 kts or better when we checked on over [fix] and that slowing without telling them was a violation of that instruction.  However; expecting a CRJ200 to be at 250 kts while intercepting a localizer in IMC on a 15 NM final is not a realistic expectation and would have likely resulted in a go around in IMC due to not being able to be stabilized by 1000 feet.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported slowing aircraft to 180 KTS to configure for landing despite ATC instruction to maintain 250 KTS. ATC advised that pilots should have informed ATC of speed reduction.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
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: A few minutes after departure from runway 15 my engine began to sputter at an altitude of approximately 2;500 feet MSL. The outside temp was 107 degrees. My supplemental electrical fuel pump quit working as the switch/breaker would not stay on. My fuel pressure was less than 1 psi and the engine requires 2.2 psi. I had been handed off from the tower to the departure frequency.I was unable to maintain altitude so I informed approach that I was turning back to the [departure] airport as it was the closest in proximity to my position. Approach then informed me he would inform the tower. I switched frequency back to tower and let them know I had engine problems and was returning. When asked if I could enter the pattern on downwind; I felt that I might not have enough energy to make the pattern and requested to land on runway. I was cleared to land and the tower canceled landing clearance to another landing aircraft on 15 in order that I might land. On landing; I still had partial power and by the time I taxied back to the repair facility; the sputtering cleared.The repair facility fixed the switch/breaker and determined that I had a vapor lock condition due to a combination of the high outside temps and lack of fuel pressure from the electric fuel pump. After repairs; I departed the next morning without incident. The ATC folks were very calm and helpful.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported loss of power after takeoff so he returned to departure airport. After landing; power loss was reportedly traced to vapor lock.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS; Class E ZBQ
ATC / advisory: Tower TUS
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was off position but in the Tower cab and I noticed an unsafe opposite direction situation occur with multiple arrivals to our crossing runway.One aircraft; [Aircraft X]; was brought in for an approach to RWY 21. At the same time; two aircraft were brought in for a RWY 03 approach [Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z]. Neither aircraft to RWY 03 were APREQ [Approval Request] with the Tower which is in violation of the locally coordinated procedures at the time. The second aircraft inbound to RWY 03; Aircraft Y; was also less than a mile away from the first aircraft [Aircraft X] to RWY 03; and did not have the first aircraft in sight. When the aircraft to RWY 21 touched down; both arrivals to RWY 03 were well inside our local cutoffs for opposite direction operations. There was no contingency plan put in place by Approach Control if the RWY 21 arrival went around.Operations to our crosswind runway should be coordinated by the Approach Control before aircraft are brought in for the approach.Opposite direction operations need to be better defined in the LOA.




Synopsis: Tucson Tower Controller reported an unsafe opposite direction operation resulting in an airborne conflict.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pushed back from gate. When the engines were turned on; there were noxious fumes in the back of the plane. Cough; burning eyes; instant headache; nausea. We went back to the gate; and Maintenance came on to recreate the event by closing the doors and starting the engines at the gate. The same thing occurred. Maintenance said that this was a TCP ingestion event with phosphate ester. I went to the ER was treated and released. I understand this exposure can manifest itself later as a neurotoxin. I am scared. Crew action to prevent? I [don't know]; that's not my line of expertise. Other groups like Maintenance can ensure it doesn't happen.




Synopsis: A B737 Flight Attendant reported noxious fumes after engine start; so the aircraft was returned to the gate where mechanics started the engines and confirmed TCP contamination. The reporter sought medical attention.