elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just after we parked at gate in DEN; the lead flight attendant called us and advised us the seat belt sign was still on; I looked up and saw the switch was in auto and not off and corrected it. After running our checklist I emerged from the cockpit and heard a hissing sound that I recognized from our EVAC simulator; the sound of a slide deploying. I peered around the corner of my doorway and saw door 1R open; with the red tape still across the viewport and the slide pack flopped out onto the deck of a catering truck. The slide luckily had not inflated. I immediately told the caterer; who had stepped into the cabin over the slide into the galley and the flight attendants in the area; to get away from the area in case the slide was still able to inflate. On debriefing; it turned out the caterer had opened the door without getting the ok; with the red tape still across the viewport; indicating the door was still armed.When the mechanics arrived and secured the slide; we discussed how the door; when opened from outside; is supposed to disarm. It had not. Also; that the position of the slide as it landed; it should have deployed and inflated; it also had not. On further investigation; the mechanic found that the slide had a date on it of 1994. I don't know what the required inspection intervals for the slides are; but 21 years seems excessive. Today; we were in fact very lucky these failures occurred.




Synopsis: A flight crew on arrival at the gate noted that a caterer opened up an armed door with the red tape still across the viewport and the slide pack flopped out onto the deck of a catering truck. The slide did not inflate.  Mechanics were called.  The slide was long overdue for inspection.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EHF.VORTAC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at 10;000 feet MSL; on a revenue flight enroute to Bakersfield California; I flew underneath a small unidentifiable object. Weather conditions at the time were VFR but hazy; I was just crossing the mountain tops into the flat land around Bakersfield when the event happened; I was located on the 141 degree radial from the Shafter (EHF) VOR at approximately 35 DME. While looking ahead and piloting; a small light from outside and above me caught my eye. When I looked up I was flying 25 to 50 feet below a small round object with what looked like a light on the bottom side of it. I initially reported this to Bakersfield Approach as a drone; but I flew by it so quickly and the range at which I spotted it; I can't say with 100% certainty what it was. I would say it's possible it could've been a balloon with the sun reflecting off of it as well. Fortunately; nothing happened and I proceeded to Bakersfield for a normal landing.Being as I don't know 100% what the object was it's hard to say what 'caused' it. If it was in fact a drone and not a balloon then it was most likely being illegally operated.Unfortunately due to the haze preventing me from seeing it sooner; and the rate of closure with the object there wasn't any time to react. I reported the event to Bakersfield Approach.Not much to suggest other than asking pilots to remain vigilant in their scans outside as best they can with the given weather conditions.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an encounter with either a drone or a balloon during cruise near Bakersfield; CA.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was deadheading; 30 minutes [prior] to landing the cabin filled with the same fumes we had the night before on the same aircraft. I got a headache and burning eyes. After deplaning and getting into fresh air I felt better.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported experiencing a headache and burning eyes when the cabin filled with fumes.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on the Tip-Toe charted visual approach to 28L SFO; 5 miles behind a Heavy B767. ATC had slowed us to 160 KTS approximately 10 miles from the runway to keep our spacing from the B767. Inbound from the San Mateo Bridge; we slowed to our final approach speed (approximately 130 KIAS); and we were on the localizer and glide slope. We were fully stabilized approximately 1;300 feet AGL; due to our slow speed crossing the outer marker. A B737 was approaching behind us on the Quiet Bridge visual approach to the parallel 28R. It is intended that aircraft stay staggered on these close parallel approaches. When we were around 1;000 feet AGL we got a TCAS Resolution Advisory which said 'descend'; and displayed command bars. I followed the command bars while my First Officer looked for the aircraft. He immediately saw it; and said it appeared he was going around. I was slightly below the glide slope and began to correct; now that we had the intruding aircraft visually. I also moved slightly left of my localizer to increase lateral separation. Then that aircraft lowered his nose rapidly to recapture his glide slope at which point he overtook us rapidly. I just made sure we maintained lateral separation while he passed us. He touched down well in front of us on the parallel Runway 28R. We landed normally on 28L. I have never had another aircraft overtake and pass me on this or any other close parallel approach. It was shocking to say the least. Any passengers looking out the window must have been stunned to see how close the other aircraft was to us. I can't control what other aircraft are going to do in any given situation. In this case I cannot go-around with a descend command from TCAS. Even when we had him visually going around would have been more dangerous in terms of collision. Any lateral movement during the go-around procedure could have been disastrous.  I felt it best to just maintain position and let him pass us. Once he was clear; we were still well within the parameters of a stabilized approach; so we continued for a normal landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier landing SFO during side by visual approaches to Runway 28L/R described a passing event; expressing concern regarding the procedure.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Fog
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Many factors played a part in the exceedance. 5 mel's and 1 cdl. We also had a limitation of FL250. Cleared 1 MEL before leaving gate. We were delayed and I switched aircraft in a hurry. I was doing IOE and he had never had restrictions like this. Weather was foggy and misty and icing conditions once airborne. Also light to moderate turbulence most of flight. It was night time and couldn't really see the sticker to remind us of limitation. It was late at night and we were both tired from being on duty for more than 9 hours at time.Plane had a CDL for right hand main landing gear door being removed. We were restricted to 250 kts. or .63 mach whichever less. We also had a pack deferred and 4 other MELs. So limited to FL250 as well. I was doing IOE and we were 3 hours delay when got to plane. Weather was low visibility and night time. By the time we were in cruise we realized that we had forgotten about the speed limitation for the landing gear. Arriving at gate in MLI; called Maintenance; and wrote up the exceedance. Don't be tired; or more focused on weather and fixated on other MEL of FL250.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported that distraction related to aircraft MEL and CDL caused him to exceed a speed restriction.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I assigned a vector to Aircraft X to intercept the HHR localizer Runway 25. Aircraft X was assigned 3000 feet from the last sector (POMR). After looking at the MVA I assigned Aircraft X to 'descend and maintain 2600'. I made a few other transmissions and then looked back at Aircraft X and saw that the altitude now showed 2400 in a 2600 MVA. I gave a low altitude alert (incorrectly though; call sign first; then low altitude alert); and advised Aircraft X that the MVA was 2600. The pilot than said; 'I thought we were assigned 2000.' I told Aircraft X to climb and maintain 2600 and expedite (should have said immediately).Installing an actual arrival to HHR from the east that has the aircraft inbound descending via would help with workload at DYNR and keep issues like this from arising. Also; slamming arrivals under the LAX final to get in to HHR is becoming outdated and bound to be an issue as traffic increases at both LAX and HHR. Procedures should be updated and reviewed accordingly. I also believe that having TMU put the HHR arrivals on the timeline and meter them with LAX traffic would be a possible solution.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reported they missed an aircraft reading back the wrong altitude and the aircraft flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the above mentioned date and time; I was the designated Pilot Flying. Descending through the Los Angeles area on vectors I was instructed to descend from 4;000 feet to 2;600 feet. I was overflying the city of Los Angeles on vectors to HHR. Autopilot was engaged; 2;600 feet was set in the altitude pre-selector and I began my descent. Another pilot reported to ATC that they flew past a drone off their right wing around 4;000 feet on approach into LAX. That would put the drone in our proximity off our right wing as well. Both the Pilot Monitoring (PM) and I were looking for that drone. I had mentioned to the PM that I have never been this low over the city of Los Angeles and we need to pay close attention to our surroundings. Through the distraction of trying to identify the drone; I descended through 2;600 feet to 2;400 feet before being advised of my altitude by ATC. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and corrected to the assigned altitude of 2;600 feet. No further issues occurred and no near misses were experienced to my knowledge. I was not informed by ATC of any possible pilot deviation nor given a contact number to call. Corrective action was taken to resolve the altitude discrepancy; and I have discussed with my crew and maintenance facility the possible reason why altitude was not captured by the autopilot. As Pilot in Command; I fully take responsibility for the actions on this day; both negative and corrective; and have discussed our safety procedures with my crew. I am filling out this report as I feel aviation is founded on safety and I strive to improve on every aspect of my piloting safety; skills and knowledge. Thank you for your time and consideration.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported overhearing a report of a UAS sighting in the area. The pilot focused on locating the UAS in relation to their aircraft and overshot their assigned altitude.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ops normal from pushback to takeoff roll.  I was flying pilot; [the] Captain non-flying pilot.   Power was set and autothrottles and FMAs all had normal indications. At approximately 60 knots there was a loud bang and the jet swerved to the right.   I steered the jet back to centerline with rudder and the Captain initiated the abort.  We stopped quickly on the runway and told ATC we'd aborted and instructed the passengers to remain seated.  After quickly assessing the risk; and talking with the Lead Flight Attendant; Captain determined it was safe to taxi clear of Runway XX and we stopped on the parallel taxiway. We requested assistance from [the] Fire Department to look at the landing gear to ensure we hadn't blown a tire or had smoke/fire coming off the brakes.   After getting the all-clear; we coordinated with Operations/Tech Ops to return to Gate X.  We closely monitored brake temp indications during the taxi back and saw that they were all decreasing in normal fashion as expected.  We were met by many company personnel at the gate and Maintenance was able to quickly determine we had an Engine Number 2 compressor stall during takeoff roll.  Passengers deplaned in normal fashion through Door 1L; and the flight crew was then escorted up to ZZZ Flight Ops to discuss our readiness and ability to continue flying the trip.  Captain and I then proceeded to fly as scheduled.


Second narrative: During takeoff roll; heard a loud bang and aircraft swerved to the right.  Executed rejected takeoff procedure.  Exited runway.  Personnel inspected aircraft externally.  No visible damage and no fires were detected.  Returned to gate.  Maintenance data showed engine stall on Number 2 Engine. My compliments to the First Officer and Flight Attendants for their professionalism during this unexpected event.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that an engine compressor stall occurred during takeoff roll; causing the aircraft to swerve and the crew to reject the takeoff.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBAZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SBAZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were told by Amazonica Control that we were not flying the routing filed in our filed flight plan. We were flying the routing in the flight plan provided to us by Dispatch. During the initial flight planning process; Dispatch had filed a flight plan that was rejected by ATC. We were told the flight plan was not in compliance with the NOTAM regarding preferred routings out of SBGR. The NOTAM was for aircraft entering Brazilian airspace between XA:00Z and XD:00Z. We were scheduled to enter Brazilian airspace before the XA:00Z. As per ATC request; a new flight plan was accomplished that fully complied with the NOTAM routing. We left SBGR Operations with an Operational Flight Plan showing Release 2. We did not see Release 1. After passing BOMAL; Amazonica Control advised us that we were deviating from our flight plan. They had on file a different routing that did not comply with the NOTAM routing. It may have been the routing originally filed by our Dispatcher in Release 1.This is the second time in 30 days that our Company's flight planning system has failed to provide me with an acceptable; legal flight plan. It appears that the flight planning system does not take into account NOTAMs; and does not comply with various countries flight planning restrictions.


Second narrative: There appears to be confusion on the preferred routing and correct filing out of SBGR. When we arrived at SBGR Operations; there was no flight plan; and the Dispatcher said there had been a computer outage. The first flight plan he filed was rejected by ATC per the Operations Staff. The second flight plan was filed and was issued to us as release 2. When we received the verbal clearance we were cleared via the SID and then 'as filed.'


Synopsis: An Air Carrier departed SBGR with a revised flight plan; the first plan rejected by ATC; and after passing BOMAL were notified by Amazonica Control that they had deviated from the flight plan. There may been NOTAMs not complied with.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing in VNY; pilot flying was the PIC which was very quiet and tired had a difficult time to do a VOR-B approach in Van Nuys since we had 2;000 BKN we end up too high short final and no ground contact. 119.3 advise him to do the published miss and PF asked the guy to circle over the airport opposite direction of the MAP turn. Finally after loosing 1;000 feet from 2;000 we saw the ground over top of the airport and he just pretended that we were doing a visual approach with full landing configuration Flap 30+ landing gear for 10 minutes from the beginning of the first VOR-B approach to overhead and wrong turn to join the beginning of the downwind leg Runway 16R at 1;000 feet to finally turn to land while in and out of clouds even though so dangerously close to ground.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a CFTT event during a visual approach in marginal weather conditions when the co-pilot turned the wrong way on a published missed approach procedure; lost 1;000 feet of altitude; and joined the traffic pattern while flying in and out of clouds.