elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: From CA-NV border to occurrence (and beyond Front Range) we experienced light-occasional moderate chop/turbulence which required multiple altitude changes in order to provide the best ride possible (Weather brief had forecast a mostly smooth ride with a patch of light over southwest CO). Seat belt sign had been on since beginning of flight. I also had made a PA announcement to the cabin explaining the ride (Bad at all alts) and to re-check S/B for security. Just prior to event we were at FL350 and from all info; the best ride was at FL270; which we requested. ATC descended us to FL310 due to traffic below. Ride quickly went from light-moderate to moderate to severe at which point I made the PA per FOM; for the F/As to be seated immediately. I also immediately requested ATC for lower ASAP due to severe turbulence. Severe turbulence lasted approximately 1/2 to 1min. ATC soon complied and assigned FL290 where the ride went to intermittent light chop. I then checked with the F/As and they reported no injuries and no damage except that one F/A had maybe pulled a muscle in her upper back in her movement to sit down in the aisle; but otherwise felt ok. I asked to keep me posted if there was any changes. ATC asked if there had been any injuries and I replied in the negative. I then reported the incident to Dispatch and Maintenance. I made a MX LOG entry. I spoke to the F/A directly about her condition and she said it felt a little worse. I asked if she wanted to file an injury report but it would have to be her decision because only she could determine her condition at this time. I also asked if she felt she could continue her duty for the remainder of the flight. She replied that she could but that she would file a report after arrival. I then reported this info to dispatch. Flight continued normally to the destination where we were met by 3 inflight managers and MX for a short de-brief.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported moderate to severe turbulence over Utah. A Flight Attendant might have pulled a muscle.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approach was planned and briefed; considering all contingencies; including the possibility of a vector to intercept final on the RNAV. On downwind given an aggressive descent and turn to base; much sooner than we expected. Not turned to final until last minute and told to intercept course to final. By the time the heading bug was around and LNAV selected; LNAV immediately captured. Dogleg heading was directly at ZZZZZ; which is 2.8 miles from the FAF. Very tight vector for an in the weather RNAV. Current standard/technique requires fully configured 2 miles prior to FAF on an RNAV. Normally; final configuration happens on final. So; slowing to 180 on base to fully configured within 0.8 miles. A lot going on in a very short period of time. Fully configured by (or just inside of) 2 miles from FAF. Due to the busy time; did not verify that VNAV was selected. As we broke out; both of us realized that we were low and corrected; about the same time that ATC called to tell us the same.Very aggressive vectors to intercept RNAV final approach. Not verifying that airplane was doing what we wanted it to do.  A suggestion to ATC. When vectoring to an RNAV; it's not the same as a visual or an ILS. More to do. Please don't give such aggressive vectors; whether you think you're doing us a favor or just trying to get us out of your hair.A suggestion to the training department. Train tight vector; rush; rush; RNAV approaches. Real world may not be 'direct to ZZZZZ' (which is 5-10 miles from the FAF); 'cleared the approach'. Apparently; that isn't how it happens all of the time.A word to the crew. Verify that the plane is doing what you want it to and if you're rushed; say so or go around. I felt rushed but in control and fully configured and dialed in where I wanted to be but didn't crosscheck to make sure the plane was doing what I wanted it to do (VNAV PTH).


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported that they felt rushed and pressured when ATC gave them vectors very close to the final approach course.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our crew experienced a fume event on Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1.The Captain made a PA regarding our initial descent and time remains until landing in ZZZ1. I was in the FC cabin with the #1 Flight Attendant picking up service items. We were maybe 30 mins out from ZZZ1.I asked the #1 [Flight Attendant] if she smelled something burning/electrical in the area of the FWD Entry door; and she said YES. We then walked through the FC cabin and down MC aisle looking for anything that may be burning (laptop; phone; iPad etc.); we found nothing; and the odor slowly dissipated. The Captain gave the PREPARE FOR LANDING PA and we all performed our in flight duties. I was in my jump seat at 2R; strapped in and everything was normal.Suddenly; there was a very strong odor wafting throughout my jump seat area that resembled dirty socks/smelly feet. Passengers in the seats facing me started pulling their shirts/blouses/coats over their noses. I immediately got out of my jump seat and went up to the #1 [Flight Attendant] and asked her if she smelled the same odor. It was throughout the cabin. The flight attendants in the back also smelled the odor.I told her to call the cockpit ASAP; even though we had to break sterile. She called; and the Captain said 'Yeah we smell it too.'The flight went on to land without incident at ZZZ1. I suggested we all write it up; and reports were filed with [Company].




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a 'dirty socks' odor event detected during initial descent.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TTN.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D TTN
ATC / advisory: Tower TTN
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain was acting as pilot flying. The aircraft had been cleared for the visual approach and cleared to land on Runway 24 at TTN. The weather was CAVU on this night. The crew had briefed and was flying the RNAV (RNP) Y Runway 24 approach at TTN fully managed with the autopilot engaged. The aircraft was on the vertical path and on the lateral path. The aircraft was on managed speed and was configured with Flaps 2 and landing gear down. While descending from 2;300 FT to 1;700 FT between CAXES and JORUT; the aircraft automation was attempting to level off at 1;700 FT but slowly descended to slightly below at 1;620 FT. The Captain announced the error and was preparing to take corrective action when the automation began a slow climb back up to 1;700. The Control Tower announced a 'low altitude alert' but by then the altitude was back to 1;700 FT as required on this segment of the approach. The amount of time the aircraft was between 1;700 FT and 1;620 FT was approximately 15 seconds. The crew noted a tailwind of approximately 20 KTS at the time of the altitude discrepancy and speculated that this may have had some effect on the vertical path during the arc portion of this RNAV approach. Because the flight was cleared for the visual approach and the terrain was clearly visible; at no time did the crew feel that additional corrective action was necessary. However; the crew agreed that if this automation error had occurred in IMC; a different course of action may have been required. The automation is normally quite reliable regarding capturing and holding altitudes on approach. However; after witnessing this error; the crew agreed that taking corrective action more quickly by anticipating this type of error may be appropriate; especially if this occurs in IMC. Aircraft automation detected its error and corrected fairly quickly.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports deviating slightly below the segment altitude of 1;700 FT during an RNAV (RNP) Y Runway 24 at TTN with the autopilot engaged in LNAV/VNAV and a clearance for a visual approach. The autopilot is allowed to correct the 80 FT deviation and the approach is continued to landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cleared to takeoff in low overcast. Was given Runway heading and climb to a 3;000 feet altitude. While transitioning to instruments roughly 200 feet AGL I noticed my artificial horizon already canted. I could still see the runway environment and knew I wasn't banked. I panicked and assumed I had lost my vacuum. I just began to climb until I cleared the overcast layer. By that time I had already broken altitude restriction and was VFR.I haven't been able to recreate undo cant in the artificial horizon again. Not sure if it was my inexperience or the instrument.




Synopsis: Mooney pilot reported an attitude indicator failure during takeoff into IMC; resulting in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201407
Location: BAK.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Aircraft component: Attitude Indicator(Gyro/Horizon/ADI)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff and turning North on a 360 vector from Tower I entered clouds at 1;000 MSL when my navigation display (Meggitt) failed [as I was] climbing to 4;000 feet and was handed over to Center. I lost control of the airplane while in the clouds. I regrouped; gained control of the airplane and asked to climb up on top to 10;000 feet.  ATC asked my intentions and I asked for an airport with better visibility while I evaluated my aircraft. He advised an airport a nearby had 4;000 feet and 10SM visibility. I was cleared to there and was stepped down while maintaining VFR. Upon clearing the clouds; I canceled my IFR flight plan; thanked Center for their help and landed VFR. I believe the cause of this incident was my failure to properly scan and my fixation with a failed instrument. Getting the instrument repaired/replaced will eliminate the instrument failure; keeping myself from fixating on the broken instrument and continuing my scan would have prevented this incident.




Synopsis: A PA-46 pilot lost first his Nav display and next control of the aircraft as he climbed out in IMC on an IFR flight plan. After regaining control he requested a clearance to on top; weather advisories for area airports and vectors to a nearby VMC field where he landed safely.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch

Narrative: Afternoon launch - sort late 90 minutes.  My freight recovery specialist; informed me Aircraft X blocked even though the ramp notified the crew to wait for new DG (dangerous goods) paperwork.  ACARS was sent to the crew to hold; new DG paperwork on the way.  I asked the Captain to call me on the phone to explain that the current DG paper work indicated no DG however; there was IDG (international dangerous goods) onboard and new paperwork is required.  We both agreed a block turn back was the best way to handle this situation.  Aircraft returned to the blocks for correction of DG paperwork; new release was sent and weight and balance (per Captain's request). Ramp agent made a mistake most likely due to high workload/task saturation and work distractions/interruptions.  The sort was over 2 hours late and the load teams were overwhelmed.  I had at least 4 adhocs with double legs (out and back) and some with 3 legs. This flight was on hold during most of the sort along with other flights; then decisions were made to reroute the adhocs and add legs.  There was a lot of confusion and decisions were being made last minute. We are in unprecedented times.  Everyone is doing their best.  Some of us are better equipped to handle the constant changes and challenges.  Errors will be made; I am glad we were able to correct it and move on.




Synopsis: Airline Dispatcher reported a ground gate return request of flight to correct Hazmat documents.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-800
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 Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The First Officer found Number 2 main gear brake wear pins below flush during preflight. I contacted Maintenance who came out to look. The pins had been written up the day prior and reported to have '1/32' inch protrusion so a maintenance discrepancy was invoked to have the brakes replaced the following day (our day). After feeling around the brake wear pin with a Maintenance person witnessing; both the First Officer and myself agreed that there was no pin protrusion and that the pin was flush or below its housing. The Maintenance personnel then took hold of the pin from behind the assembly; twisted it around and repeatedly said that he could feel the end of the pin and insisted that the brake pads were scheduled to be replaced in [City] that day. The First Officer and I agreed that despite the maintenance personnel's insistence that the brakes were OK for further use for the two more legs to [City]; we disagreed and I refused the aircraft.This is a classic case of 'pilot pushing' into a potentially unsafe situation and where money took precedence over getting an essential safety related part of the aircraft fixed in a timely manner. This scenario is becoming more common.I am not familiar with the maintenance discrepancy provision in [the] maintenance manual for this situation. We haven't been trained about its use and if there is a definite safety risk involved or if the risk is minimal but I was put in a situation that was uncomfortable because of it so I made the conservative decision not to take the aircraft. My First Officer was also visibly upset that she was being pushed into a potentially unsafe situation and that her judgment was being questioned by the Maintenance personnel.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that during preflight Maintenance was contacted to discuss a maintenance discrepancy; after pressure on pilots to continue with flight aircraft was refused.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On initial climb just before penetrating overcast layer we received a warning that the flaps failed to completely retract. Continued climb out Captain ran QRH to attempt correct condition (unsuccessful). Continued departure as aircraft was feeling normal. After the required wait time a second attempt to correct the condition was performed but again unsuccessful. After discussing the flap situation and aircraft performance with ground based company personnel the decision was made to continue the flight to destination and land with flaps in current position.On approach to [destination airport] in preparation for landing in visual condition on final approach we noticed the landing gear lights were indicating three green with the landing gear lever in the up position. A request to go around in the pattern to assess the landing gear indication was made. Once the landing gear position was verified by seeing the main struts on both left and right side from cockpit the landing was made.


Second narrative: [During climb] 'Flaps' annunciator came on. Flaps stuck at 3 degrees. Ran checklist; but it did not correct problem. Called Operations. After much discussion; Operations wanted us to continue provided we thought the plane was safe. We thought the plane was safe to fly; so we continued.Upon approach; we 'discovered' that the gear was still down. We went around to sort out what was happening. The gear was down with three green; so we landed.The flaps failed due to a rag being left in the actuator. Instead of trying to help out the company by continuing the flight; I should have turned back and landed. If I did then I wouldn't be writing this. The gear circuit breaker was popped and we did not catch this on the preflight. Contributing to this is the fact that we had a scheduled 25 minute turn with an airplane swap. Instead of trying to maintain the schedule; we should have taken our time to do a thorough job. Fixation of the problem was also a contributing factor to the gear issue.


Synopsis: PC-12 flight crew reported a rag was left in such a location so as to prevent full retraction of the flaps after takeoff. The distraction led to failure to retract the landing gear.